Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Detailed tables of services for stations

About five years ago we had a flurry of edits from one or two people who were adding tables to railway station articles like this, mainly in East Anglia but I think some other areas also. I'm pretty sure that we had s discussion that resulted in them being discouraged on two main principles: (i) that such detail on a station article is against WP:NOTTIMETABLE and really belongs in the article about the line or the Train Operating Company; (ii) that descriptions of services are better presented as prose. We removed some of these tables - but not all, apparently.

In recent days (when I've been very busy elsewhere, now having a severe watchlist backlog) I've noticed that TBM10 (talk · contribs) is now adding (or in some cases, re-adding) similar tables, again in East Anglis, as here. Is it time for a revised opinion? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I used to be strongly opposed to these on grounds of clutter and of how quickly they go out of date, but am gradually coming to see the arguments in favour. For major termini and interchanges, I think it probably makes sense to keep them—a non-negligible proportion of readers are looking for "is there a direct train from Huddersfield to Norwich" type information. Yes, Wikipedia isn't the best place for any reader to get this information, but owing to the nature of the internet it's where they end up—the airport people maintain destination lists on the airport articles for the same reason. If the tables are kept, I'd be inclined not to include frequencies as those change so rapidly, but "where do the trains from this station actually go?" seems a perfectly reasonable question for Wikipedia to be answering. ‑ Iridescent 09:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Whilst I generally prefer prose in most uses, I do feel that a table can be more visually appealing and effective at getting the information across in this instance (service patterns). For example, with Goodmayes, I think it's easier to use the table rather than explaining the service pattern in prose. Since this station has a very basic service (one route and typically a train every ten minutes), its the easiest way of clearly showing the reader what stations you can travel to, on which type of vehicle, and generally how often. The downside of prose is you'd probably be unable to show all of the destinations you can travel to from that station. Would it really be preferable to state in prose: "Trains operated by TfL Rail typically call every ten minutes in each direction between Liverpool Street and Shenfield, also calling at Stratford, Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park, Ilford, Seven Kings, Goodmayes, Chadwell Heath, Romford, Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood. Trains are typically formed by Class 315 rolling stock."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBM10 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Iridescent, I am happy for them to be added, but they shouldn't say train frequencies or class of train used. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced they help with service patterns unless you include every single station on the route and bold the calling points. I'd prefer to see these as prose. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
To me, the stopping patterns are not required - these will be the same across several stations on that route and should really be in one central place, viz. the article for the route. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
For stations with a very simple or limited service (one route, one train per hour, for example) I agree that prose may be better than a table. Perhaps my edit here to Trimley is the best way to go as an example? For stations with multiple routes and services, like Norwich, perhaps a table is more appropriate. --TBM10 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I feel the inclusion of some limited timetable information is essential in illustrating both past and present services to stations as this is an integral part of their history.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that limited details of previous timetables can add valuable historic detail to an article, however I don't find these tables helpful in many cases for current service patterns. Apart from stations in London or one of the major conurbations, patterns are rarely so simple that they can be rendered logically in a simple table. As for rolling stock, I don't think that is relevant to the service frequency and is seldom cited properly.Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Any thoughts on my comment above on 30 April? --TBM10 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

UK station disambiguation RM

I've started a discussion on UK station disambiguation here to try and find consensus for making disambiguation methods more consistent. The input of knowledgeable editors would be valuable. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 17:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

BR logos

For anyone interested, there is a proposal to delete several British Rail/National rail logos on copyright grounds, notwithstanding the PD rationale attached to each. Logos proposed for deletion are: National Rail logo.svg Logo British Rail.svg File:National Rail logo white.svg, BR arrows.png and London Rail.svg. You may take a view on the relevant deletion nomination pages.

File:Logo British Rail.svg
Cnbrb (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If you can get some sort of official position out of the Department of Transport, you are welcome to approach them with a view to getting an OTRS slip.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is a consensus that the PD rationale applies, then contacting them is a waste of time and effort. We don't need to contact them at this point, we need to establish if there IS any copyright protection in the first place. If there clearly is then it makes sense to contact them then - but not yet.
The fact it is a registered trademark doesn't necessarily mean its copyrighted, I've seen no clear evidence for copyright protection.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
That is a rather optimistic view, if you ask them first anyway, it's an additional confirmation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately the BR double arrows logo was seemingly defined in a manual

(copies of which are at doublearrow.co.uk), the copyright notes on that site (http://www.doublearrow.co.uk/copyright.htm) suggest that in the absence of an indication to the contrary, the logo might still be in copyright. If you think what the notices there say are wrong, prove it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the best course of action is to assume that the logos are in some form of public domain and can be used freely. Everything has some sort of copyright unless it has been released under some sort of licence. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Waiting saves a LOT of time and effort when you don't need confirmation. It also makes the actual communication easier. If its been positively established that it is copyrighted, and who the copyright holder is, then its a standard request for permission. They can then give a clear yes/no answer to a straightforward question. At this point its a fishing expedition: You'd be lucky to get any meaningful answer, when you aren't asking a simple question.
@Nicnote: That's not true, certain things are not simply not eligible for copyright, as there is no creative effort to protect (like this file). The logo is definitely PD in the United States (so could be hosted by WP, even if deleted from Commons).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Given that this logo is highly distinctive and was seemingly specially commissioned, I'm having a hard time seeing why you think it would be PD. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: You're right, some things are ineligible. But I strongly believe that if an artist gets paid to create this logo (as they would have done) which is distinctive (anyone in the UK know what these two lines and a jageddy perpendicular line mean), it is copyrighted and therefore requires a licence to be published. That's like saying the Lloyds Bank logo has no licence because it is just a horse and some text. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The BR logos are definitely free in the United States, so can be hosted by Wikipedia (which only cares about US copyright). Consider the examples listed commons:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States, which have all been confirmed by a US court as not being eligible for copyright; most of which are obviously more complex than the BR logo and all were commissioned by the orginisation they are for.
Copyright status in the United Kingdom is open for discussion - and the logo would need to be free in the UK to be hosted on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Nothing is definitive until its proven. That proof would be an OTRS slip, which you seem to have an aversion to. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please have a look at this. The originality here was significantly lower than the BR logo. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: An OTRS discussion will not address copyright status in the US, as naturally a UK organisation will only answer about the status in the UK. And yes, I'm averse to going to OTRS when there is no point. If you feel there is benefit - why don't YOU ask?
That had certainly been considered. However I'm still having a hard time wondering why you think it's PD in the US, even if agree it's not PD in the UK. Is your view that it's simply not original enough? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The logo is PD in the US because the threshold of originality is a LOT higher than in the UK. I consider UK copyright questionable, and worthy of further discussion (at the Commons deletion request - please consolidate those into a single one?). PD status in the US is not dependent on being PD in the UK as well.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Will definitely consider consolidating the requests, as all the files are in the same category it seems. However other contributors had started to comment, so wasn't sure how to merge the discussions. I've got no objections to an admin (at commons) consolidating them either. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nicnote: To repeat, I have said that status in the United States is clearly ok - so they all can be hosted by WP with no concern whatsoever. Status in the UK is questionable.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Licensing policy is clear: the work must be "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
US copyright is different to UK copyright. Wikipedia can host files that are free in the United States, even if not free in their source country. That is why File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg is fine to be hosted on WP, even though a UK court explicitly ruled it is protected by copyright. That file cannot be hosted on Commons, as Commons policy also requires that it is free in the US and the source country.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
As these logos were commissioned for the British Railways Board and were first used prior to 1 Jan 1967[1] doesn't {{PD-UKGov}} now apply and they are Crown Copyright over 50 years old? If not, then let's get the logos downloaded off Commons and uploaded here before they are deleted from Commons. They can be tagged here with {{PD-logo}} and {{PD-USonly}}. Nthep (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My view is that these logos are permitted under Commons policy Commons:Threshold of originality. You would need to get consensus on changing commons policy first before moving to delete permitted images. Commons has many logos tagged with PD-shape and PD-textlogo. 11:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Editors - thanks for discussing here but please also add your views to the relevant Deletion Request pages if you wish to affect the outcome:

Commons has handy voting templates to show your support/opposition:

Cnbrb (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you go folks, the logos have all been deleted. Cnbrb (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've uploaded a version of File:National Rail logo.svg as PD-logo and PD-USonly as a temporary measure while we get the copyright situation investigated. The others don't seem to have been used much so I haven't bothered. Nthep (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's beyond any doubt that ATOC still claim copyright on the logo. While it may (emphasis on "may") not qualify for US copyright, I'd very strongly recommend against anyone living in the UK/EU from doing anything with it that could potentially be considered a copyright violation. Some of you with long memories will no doubt have unfond memories of being hassled by Transport for London's legal department over the use of the roundel, and I can't imagine ATOC and NWR are going to be any more keen on anything that might mean their most valuable piece of intellectual property passing into the public domain. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the above suggestion that this document states beyond any doubt that ATOC claims copyright. To me the opposite seems to be the case. The document is titled Design Guidelines, and the header clearly states..."The double arrow symbol is owned by the Department for Transport which licenses its use" and "“The logo is a registered trade mark in the name of the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport”." The document you have chosen appears to be a guide to its own members on how they should use the logos. ATOC is not a government department, quite the opposite in fact, it's a group which represents the current Train Operating Companies. Dr Sludge (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
That document does not clearly indicate that anyone claims copyright over the logo. It clearly indicates that it is a trademark, and status as a trademark is independent of its copyright status. The license for use could be about use-of-trademark not use-of-copyright. However, the document does make it clear that BR's residual intellectual property rights are now held by the Department for Transport. That makes the DfT the organisation to contact (not ATOC).
There's potential for a big win there: The right approach could get all BR-copyright material released as OGL (although I doubt we would be that lucky!).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Well indeed, that would be lovely! Cnbrb (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And an other similar case is all the London Underground roundels on commons. The statement on the TfL website is quite clear: "Strict rules exist about how the roundel can be implemented, and copyright exists on its reproduction. Only name/words (companies, stations etc.) already used by TfL can be written through the bar of the logo and any third party wishing to reproduce any of these logos must first seek the written authority of TfL." That's an even clearer claim of copyright than the National Rail/ATOC claim discussed above. Given that Commons:Threshold of originality has been shown not to apply to UK logos, it seems strangely inconsistent to me that Tube logos slip through the net while BR logos are all deleted from commons. 12:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move moved from Talk:Georgetown railway station (Scotland)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - opening RFC instead. Per discussion with Cuchullain below, and as others have noted, this issue needs a wider discussion than just a single move request for a small set of stations. There is no consistency in how UK stations are disambiguated, and also no guidelines, so we need to come up with some. Cuchullain has promised to open an RFC on this matter at WP:TWP.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


– This is an attempt to get some consistency with the way railway station articles are disambiguated in Scotland, following RMs here and here, and discussion on my talk page here. Clearly, several options are in current use. It should be noted that many stations in the UK use the fairly idiosyncratic mid-phrase disambiguation format - "Xxx (County) railway station". There are different explanations for this, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement on when and how it should be done, and there's no guidance about it in the relevant WP:UKSTATION guideline. Amakuru, who has experience in these matters, has explained that mid-phrase disambiguation is used when "that's how Network Rail styles those particular ambiguous station names when they conflict with other UK stations". This makes sense for stations where there's a conflict with other UK stations, but it doesn't help for those that are ambiguous only with foreign stations and thus have no further Network Rail styling. It's also contrary to WP:NCDAB policy.
At any rate, the main thing here is to get consistency, whatever form is decided. This RM leaves out stations that are ambiguous with other UK stations (eg Bathgate (Upper) railway station, Bathgate (Lower) railway station), which may be dealt with in a future discussion depending on what's decided here. It also deals only with Scotland in hopes of gauging consensus to apply more widely. To make things easier, here are options that seem to be in use:

  • A: Xxx railway station (Scotland)
  • B: Xxx railway station, Scotland
  • C: Xxx railway station (County/Community)
  • D: Xxx (County/Community) railway station

Please !vote below. Cúchullain t/c 17:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I support option A in these cases (I am the nominator). I believe it's the most consistent with WP:NCDAB policy on parenthetical disambiguation (which is generally used in the related guidelines WP:USSTATION and WP:CANSTATION). (Scotland) is likely to be more WP:RECOGNIZABLE for readers than using the name of the county or community. I oppose using option D except in cases where that's how Network Rail styles things (i.e., none of the above stations).--Cúchullain t/c 17:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C, dab by county. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A and C, but D. It's all context-dependent. D should be used where this is the official disambiguation of the station as used by Network Rail - for instance Newport (South Wales) railway station to distinguish from Newport (Essex) railway station. A should be used where we are for instance disambiguating between countries, so if there's a station in Scotland and in Australia, those should be suffixed (Scotland) as appropriate. If however we are talking about a disused station with the same name, and there are several around the country, then we need to use a more specific county-level disambiguator. I do not believe B should be used under any circumstances. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Mattbuck: Your comments are spot on, but I want to note that the stations listed above are (or were meant to be) only stations where there's no ambiguous station within the UK, only foreign countries.--Cúchullain t/c 20:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Cuchullain, they're also all current stations, so would have PRIMARYTOPIC over any disused ones anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
A few of them are closed stations (Banff railway station (Aberdeenshire) is one), but yes, open stations would be primary over closed stations.--Cúchullain t/c 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Jeni: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(UK_stations)#Disambiguation doesn't actually say what you're saying it does, so there's nothing to change there. Whatever consensus decides should be added to the guideline so it's clear for the future. And a formal move discussion is a better and less "hidden" method of gauging consensus than a discussion on the talk page of a guideline. If this fails we could try an RfC.--Cúchullain t/c 14:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • D when this is an official name used by Network Rail (or others), where it is not then A when this is not also ambiguous, C when A is ambiguous. In all cases redirects should be used from all forms to whichever is in use. I also support moving this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Thryduulf:To be clear, all the topics included in this RM are those where there does not appear to be a Network Rail disambiguator, as they're ambiguous only with things from other countries. If my reading of your statement is correct, would that be A or C for you here?--Cúchullain t/c 14:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think per Jeni, that we need a wider forum for this. Many of the "D" votes above fail to appreciate the subtle difference between National Rail disambiguators and WIkipedia disambiguators. Furthermore, WP:NCUKSTATIONS does not give us any clue as to how the examples above should be disambiguated - the section WP:NCUKSTATIONS#Disambiguation does not say where to put the disambiguator, other than the single example of Newport (Essex) railway station, which as we already know is a special case, since the "Essex" is a National Rail defined disambiguator. Our goal should be to gain consensus on how all such stations should be disambiguated, and then add more instructions to NCUKSTATIONS. I don't think we can debate that in this RM, but for the record, in such a debate my favoured set of rules would be the rules as they have generally been applied:
    1. Where a National Rail disambiguator exists, use that an infix it, e.g. Sutton (Surrey) railway station.
    2. Where no National Rail disambiguator exists (most likely because the name is unique in the UK but not worldwide), use a parenthesised standard WP:UKPLACE disambiguator at the end. e.g. Georgetown railway station (Scotland). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Amakuru, that's fine with me, but this should be converted to an WP:RFC rather than a move discussion if it's not going to be located on one of the articles to be moved. Perhaps it would be better to close and start over with clearer instructions.--Cúchullain t/c 21:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: I agree, we should start an RfC for this. And I think we should layout the options clearly, which would probably be something like:
  1. Disambiguate all such stations with infix parentheses
  2. Disambiguate those with National Rail disambiguators with infixes, and all others with suffixes (either parentheses or comma)
  3. Disambiguate all with suffixes (either parentheses or comma)
To help see the current situation, I have prepared User:Amakuru/Disambiguated stations which shows all UK stations containing a disambiguator of any sort. As you'll see, they are a big mix at the moment, and we should standardise them. My personal preference is for (2) above, because I don't see a good reason to put the disambiguator in the middle where it is not an official disambiguator. But I'll cast my vote on that once we start the RfC. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Amakuru: Sounds good, want to close this discussion? I can draft the RfC. I think WP:TWP may be a better location for it, as it's a much more active project, but either works.--Cúchullain t/c 13:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • D both when it is official and when it is not due to the station having closed and there not being a reference to it on the National Rail website (as is the case with nearly all those mentioned above: Georgetown, Houston, Patna, Clunes, Grange, Banff, Hatton). Wikipedia disambiguators give way to natural disambiguators, which is what we have here. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ref style at Moorgate tube crash

Thread closed. Editor in question threw toys out of pram and retired. Consensus is that {{sfn}} is in use and article should be edited to use that form of referencing, Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 19 June 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.

There is a thread at Talk:Moorgate tube crash#References which is... interesting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting? – Sigersson (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, interesting: as in "it is interesting that a user who has been editing for just twelve days is familiar with terms like 'wikilawyer' and 'WP:COMMONSENSE'"; or "it is interesting that a user who has been editing for just twelve days knows that a user talk page is an inappropriate venue to discuss an article's development"; or even "it is interesting that Sigersson has found their way to this thread despite never previously having posted to this page". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
What are you implying? Has it not crossed your mind that I may be a former IP editor who has now registered, or do you just want to make snide and suggestive comments? See WP:BRANDNEW, WP:NOTSOCK and try to act like WP:AGF actually means something. (And before you compound your error by asking how I know those particular policies, they were raised in my defence recently.) - Sigersson (talk) 22:44, 11 June 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.

North London Line

Dicklyon, why was North London Line renamed to North London line even though East London Line, South London Line, West London Line and Romford to Upminster Line were left with a capital "L" in "Line"? This does not appear to have been discussed on this page or anywhere else. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not sure. Looks like the lowercase usages was common in early 20th century, but it's now mostly treated as a proper name, so I've no objection if you want to move it back. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
And I moved that last one to Romford–Upminster line, as the cited sources use the dash and don't capitalize line. That fits the usual pattern better. Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the standard agreed by consensus ages ago was that London Underground lines have a lowercase 'l', while National Rail lines retain an uppercase 'L'. I can't point you to the actual discussion. Since the NLL came under TfL control when it was subsumed into London Overground, I think the Tube naming convention was applied. But yes, it should be consistent.Cnbrb (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Boiler diameters misdescribed

See Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Diameterinside. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Midland Metro template

I have nominated {{Metro ring}} for deletion, as it is not used anywhere. If anyone knows what it's supposed to be for and thinks it should be used, please comment at the deletion discussion. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Which is correct, "Manchester Metrolink" or "The Manchester Metrolink"? See today's OTD hook and WP:ERRORS, also compare article lead sentence with (e.g) London Underground. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine with "the" to me. I would also say "the London Underground". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Night owl

What class was the GWR loco nicknamed night owl? A new-build of the class is being built at Llangollen. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a trip round the Llangollen sheds on Saturday, so will upload some photos of this and the other new builds shortly. Optimist on the run (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Druimuachdar Summit

I'm having trouble with an IP who insists on Anglicising the spelling of Druimuachdar Summit in the article Highland Main Line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had a word. If he reverts again tonight he can be legitimately 3RR blocked, but hopefully I can convince him that it's not worth picking a fight over. I personally know it as Drumochter, but I also know that this is prime SNP territory and that there are more important things to sort out, like providing sources for all the content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a Google search seems to suggest that "Druimuachdar" is a name used only in the railway world, and everyone else, including Ordnance Survey (http://streetmap.co.uk/grid/262918_776482_120), calls it "Drumochter" (in the English language). In Gaelic, it's two words "Druim Uachdar". -- Dr Greg  talk  22:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
What it comes down to is this: how does the railway spell the name of a railway feature? Besides User talk:86.128.4.147#July 2017, there's now a thread at Talk:Highland Main Line#Drumochter Spelling, and also User talk:Redrose64#Highland Main Line if you're interested. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, I wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit new editors? Bobo.03 (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you spamming this message all over Wikipedia? (At the time of writing a mighty 1.5% of your edits are to actual Wikipedia content.) Given that this project is linked from the talkpage of every UK railway article, and Portal:UK Railways is linked from (almost) every article on UK railways, it's not as if this project is hard to find. Do you have the slightest evidence that anyone active in writing about UK railways has ever had the slightest difficulty in finding this project? This project is a specialist resource to enable collaboration between writers with shared interests—it's not intended as something that should be spamvertised to every new editor, since 99.9% of them won't have the slightest interest in the topic. ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Bobo is part of some research team with some undefined (to us) investigation in wikiprojects, see their talk page. Nthep (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Whatever their motives, Bobo may have a point. Not every editor, particularly relative newbies, reads every aspect of the talk page and may not know of the concept of WikiProjects. Perhaps we could create a template, say {{WPUKR-Welcome}}, to substitute on the talk page of someone we spot contributing to relevant articles. The message could read something like Hi - welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contribution to (article). Are you aware that there is a WP:WikiProject for UK Railways? You would be welcome to come and join us. ~~~~. I'm sure someone else can come up with better wording, but you get the gist. Any thoughts? Optimist on the run (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
But every past experience has shown that all something like that does is generate a list of "members" who lose interest after a month and never edit again; I don't mean to sound elitist but anyone with enough knowledge of Wikipedia to contribute usefully to this talk page is already going to be aware of the project links—there are many criticisms one could make of Wikipedia, but "not enough internal spam links in infoboxes and at the bottom of articles" is not one of them. (Those projects like Videogames which have tried recruitment exercises just end up having to go through their membership removing all the inactives a couple of months later.) Bobo.03, I think you're labouring under a misapprehension regarding what WikiProjects do—they don't engage in "recruitment" or have any kind of formal membership. WikiProject pages are just specialist pages for collating material that will be useful to people working in a particular area, and talkpages to allow people to discuss issues which will potentially affect multiple articles without having to have the discussion on multiple talk pages, not some kind of secret society which owns the articles that fall into their particular field. (I'm not officially a member of WikiProject London Transport but I nonetheless wrote 14 of their 29 Featured Articles.) ‑ Iridescent 18:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iridescent, I am a grad student, and am collaborating with some researchers in Wikimedia Foundation, with a general purpose of helping build a successful Wikipedia community. Yeh, I think I understand the purpose that WikiProjects serve and I agree with all you said about WikiProjects - sorry that I did a poor job in communicating it. Wikipedia, like any online communities, always has problem in retaining users. Many attempts have been made in that regard as well. For us, one motivation is to ask help from members in WikiProjects (who are dedicated and interested in specific topics) to help those motivated new users get onboard. I don't believe all those "recruited" new editors will turn into dedicated editors either, but that might be the attempt the community as a whole should make - to help the newcomers who just join Wikipedia.
The purpose of our study is to help WikiProjects find more people who are interested in the topic to contribute, and help editors find a group of dedicated people to collaborated with. Based on the conversation I had with some projects, as you might have seen, our study in general is welcomed - many projects actually need people to help and contribute. I don't think simply putting a name on the member list means anything at all. What matters is to create opportunities for editors to discuss and collaborate. Thousand of thousands active editors are on Wikipedia every day. As Optimist on the run mentioned, I don't think that every editor might know the existence of a project that is related to what he or she is interested. This is a great opportunity for projects that need help. So what I am doing recently is to communicate with WikiProjects to understand the needs of WikiProjects and to build a system that can serve this purpose.
Hope this would make some clarification. I am deeply sorry if our study is not something you are interested, and I interrupted your regular activities. But I am happy to keep this conversation for more questions. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a member of any projects, or any that I signed my name to once aren't taken particularly seriously, except for WP:WikiProject Pink Floyd and WP:WikiProject Rock Music, both of which I've basically attempted to rescue from the dead. I tend to just improve articles under my own steam however best I can; although I've tried asking projects for help on sources, they're generally no use at all. Most projects seem to have descended into petty MOS squabbling that I'll run screaming from full speed in the opposite direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Pink Floyd sounds ghastly, like an episode of Toy Story. You're either Andy's Toys, or the freaky mutant bad guys. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
It's sad to see these projects dead for years, Ritchie333. I think the reason of projects being inactive should mostly be the lack of contributors, right? I am not sure for what reason, they stopped contributing. But I wonder, at the time you tried to rescue those projects, if you see a list of recommended candidate editors who have edited articles within the scope of the project, or have edited of similar topics, would you like to reach out them, let them know that there is a group of dedicated editors working on this topic, and ask them to work together on it? Do you think it would help? Again, I honestly don't think that "membership" matters that much. It's the interaction and collaboration among the group of editors matters. Bobo.03 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I think everyone else has said it well - projects get cliquey and they squabble about trivial and unimportant detail. Look how much grief we've seen here over the capitalisation (or not) of "Line", the Birds WikiProject has had some horrendous feuds about capitalisations, and the less said about the Classical / Opera trench warfare over infoboxes, the better. Even WikiProject Editor Retention descended into name-calling after a number of years. I have to conclude that WikiProjects on a project of this magnitude do not scale and are prone to empire building and fiefdoms. There are absolutely editors I go to if I want help or advice about something, and occasionally I do some collaborative work with one or two, but on the main I think people aren't interested in going as far as committing to a project, which just leaves the muppets to take over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • My experience of WikiProjects is that they're like most cliques - their prime function is to exclude outsiders, not to recruit others. If Bobo has solutions for that, then go for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Shutting every project down except MILHIST would be a simple idea, and actually work quite well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Nah, MILHIST needs to go, too. It exhibits the same problems, just with a pseudo-bureaucracy riding on top of it. The time of the wikiproject has come and gone. It was a necessary thing in WP's early days when the focus was on marshalling a tremendous number of short-term "gee whiz" volunteers to create millions of articles out of nothing. We're in a totally different part of the organizational lifecycle now – maintenance and polishing for the most part, by people interested in the project for the long haul, not laying the foundation with huge teams of temporary people. Wikiprojects today cause more trouble than they're worth, largely being insular pockets of WP:OWN resistance against what the rest of the community wants and what readers expect. (I say this a founder/cofounder of various wikiprojects; they had their day, but the sun has set – several years ago.) If WP wants to keep more editors, getting rid of the wikiprojects will help, because they are a serious barrier to entry, unless one is fortunate enough to pick topics to work on which are not the staked-out turf of any active wikiproject. The only rules and norms anyone should have to learn here are the site-wide WP:P&G.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I think projects are great - we desperately need them. But at present, we don't have them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

There are many anomalies that need to be reviewed. To quote just a few examples, why Great Western main line but Chiltern Main Line, or South Western Main Line but South Eastern main line? Why Oxted line but Sheerness Line? Why Portsmouth Direct line rather than Portsmouth direct line? Why Epsom Downs Branch but Bishops Waltham branch? Why Gloucester loop line but Henbury Loop Line or Northampton loop or Southbury Loop? Why Cotswold Line but Heart of Wales line? Why Stafford–Manchester line but Stone to Colwich Line? Why Birmingham to Worcester via Kidderminster line but Birmingham to Worcester via Bromsgrove Line? Why Romford–Upminster line but Gospel Oak to Barking line? Why North London line but East London Line? And the naming of closed routes scarcely seems to have been updated at all (Category:Closed railway lines in England). Colonies Chris (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Much (but not all) of this was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways.
@Dicklyon: This is why there should be one unified record of all the discussion and moves. Useddenim (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_39. Search for "main line" on that page to find cases where it was judged to be part of a proper name, and cases where it was not. I don't claim everything is perfectly decided or finished, but I wouldn't call these "anomalies", either. Just differences. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't claim to be versed in the minutiae of discussions on this subject, and I don't intend to be come so. I'm just listing things - as an outsider - that look inconsistent to me. I leave the resolution of these matters to the experts. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Colonies Chris it's basically because some prat decided to move them all to lower case, which no one else likes, but which for the most part no one could come up with a good policy-based argument against because sources are inconsistent. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Mattbuck That seems like a much better answer than I could come up with! Something like Parkinson's bicycle shed might have something to do with it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

(←) Well, to throw in a few observations from a non-expert's perspective: I can entirely understand the move to use endash instead of 'to' to link endpoints, as in Stafford–Manchester line, for example. And i can understand the logic of differentiating between lines that are purely described by their endpoints (as in the previous example, using lower-case 'line') and those which have a marketing name (Poacher Line, upper case). But that leaves a lot of apparent inconsistences, as I've listed above, and particularly with London Underground lines, which the average punter always thinks of as capitalised, and according to the logic of 'endpoints vs marketing' should surely be uppercased. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree that LU lines should be capitalised. Unfortunately my employer apparently disagrees. Still, I make sure all the reports I write use capitals, and hopefully this will slowly spread... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you should follow suit and change your username to MATTBUCK. ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh hell no, LU also really like CAPITAL LETTERS FOR STATION NAMES. It annoys the shit out of me. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so LU prefer lowercasing 'line', but what about Northern line (Merseyrail)? There's an official map here and a Merseyrail website link on that page, both of which use uppercasing. And if Northern line (Merseyrail), then why City Line (Merseyrail)? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well - the simple answer is that someone moved Northern line (Merseyrail) (and also Wirral line) to the lower case 'line' in December 2016 with little or no discussion about whether or not the names were proper (there would appear to be a good case for an initial cap on 'Line' - Merseyrail itself, the BBC, a number of national newspapers - although the Chester Chronicle (bless) goes for 'line'). I guess the page movers have not got round to the C**y Line (Merseyrail) yet because they are prolonging the agony or ecstasy - depending on your point of view.
To create further inconsistencies the page mover did not bother to check/change/follow up on the other station articles, transport templates etc so we currently have about 100 occurrences of 'Northern Line' to about 10 of 'Northern line' (only counting the ones with a Merseyrail context). It does feel a bit like cleaning up after the Lord Mayor's Show.
I suspect that many of us who worry a bit about getting names right have just lost the will to live as far as this particular debate goes. I'm off to throw myself onto the West Anglia Main Line/West Anglia Mainline/West Anglia main line/f**k it - A14... Robevans123 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
<Sigh> this is exactly why I argued against the downcasings earlier this year; it would ineviatably create arbitrary naming inconsistencies which would be confusing for readers. The only way to have consistent article titles would be to have consistent capitalisation. But apparently such common sense considerations aren't permitted to be considered under present wikipedia rules! G-13114 (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

More ‘Bad faith’ move requests

This time from SMcCandlish, who followed enough of the previous discussion back in February though April to know that notice should have been given here at the project talk page, and not just at the individual articles (South Western Main Line, Kent Coast Line, Brighton Main Line, South London Line, Crystal Palace Line, Sheerness Line, Bexleyheath Line, Catford Loop Line). Does this obviously deliberate attempt to hide a disruptive practice warrant a topic ban request at WP:ANI? Useddenim (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

They seem to have closed the move discussion after one day, and not announcing it anywhere, which doesn't seem very sporting to me. Looks like a fix up to me. if they haven't followed proper proceedures, then I would say revert and let it be done properly. G-13114 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You go right ahead and open an ANI thread, and see what happens when people read what you wrote here. [In user talk, I've left you both ArbCom's stock template about CIVIL/NPA/AGF issues in article titles disputes, since you seem to be unaware of the matter. I don't care for the wording in it, but we're not allowed to edit it.]. We've been over this before: WP:RM is the prescribed, formal, site-wide process for article renames, one that you lot took Dick_lyon to ANI for not using. Now you're going to falsely cry foul because the process you demanded be followed is being followed? How about no. Notices about RMs are never given at wikiprojects, unless someone is blatantly canvassing. It would defeat the entire purpose, which is to get broad, no-vested-interest input from the entire editorial community, balanced with the input of those actually working on and watchlisting the article(s) in question – not a bloc vote from a wikiproject. I have no idea why you think the RM was closed prematurely or questionably; it was opened 18 July 2017 and closed on 31 July, by an admin, with unanimous support, and carefully researched responses, not just a bunch of drive-by !votes. [2] You literally have nothing to complain about at all, other than not getting your personal preference. See also the WP:NOTGETTINGIT principle; consensus is firmly against your over-capitalisation habit, and it's high time that fact began to sink in. PS: The notices at the articles' talk pages are auto-generated by the RM bot whenever a multi-page RM is opened. No one's manually "notifying" anyone. The RM bot doesn't post on wikiproject talk pages (unless the project itself is up for rename), and this is by design.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Notices about RMs most certainly are given at wikiprojects; here's one - and this is not canvassing since the notice is neutral. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Not by the RM bot, they're not. That's some other bot, and what it's doing is highly questionable. The first rule of WP:CANVASS is "that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation". Notices that narrow participation, by encouraging a bloc vote by a narrow group of participants, fails that guideline from the very first sentence. But all of this is a moot point. Consensus does not agree with you capitalization urge, or RM would not keep going against it, including when a pack of railfans show up and bloc vote. This is just a downcase-when-possible site. Fact.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
smccandlish: in that case, why don't you just go and downcase everything and be done with it? face it, you're just a sore winner, just like donald trump. useddenim (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2017 (utc)

Images on Fenchurch Street station

There's a mild content dispute in this article - could anyone interested pop over to Talk:Fenchurch Street station and have your say. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Unidentified train at unknown station

What and where?

Here's one for the sleuths: Identify both the loco class and the location. My feeling is that it looks the like West Highland Line. Optimist on the run (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The tender is of LMS Ivatt type, and the plate on the back clearly shows that it is 3500 gallons. This, and the high footplate to the loco, almost certainly indicate an LMS Ivatt Class 4. Given the right reference works, the tender number (possibly 4692) could also point to the appropriate loco number. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I've found that the Ivatt Class 4 tenders were numbered 4650-4811 for locos (4)3000-43161, but I don't know if they were attached in sequence. If so, then tender 4692 goes with loco 43042 - unless a tender swap had occurred at some point: those electrification warning flashes point to no earlier than the late 1950s. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's 4695, in which case 43045. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
43045 was never based in Scotland; Leicester, Lancaster, Carlisle, Kirkby Stephen, Carnforth and Workington were its depots so unlikely to be that engine AND the West Highland. Nthep (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Off topic-but relevant to HS3

Currently, I cross the Contournement Nîmes – Montpellier everytime I go to the supermarket. Does anyone have a definitive copyright answer of how much of it I am allowed to photograph. On their website there is a superb graphic TGV routes past present and future but it is the 188 Ouvrage d'art (construction sites) that are inhibiting me, as everything worth photographing has appeared on an engineering drawing. The copyright of ouvrage d'art remains with the guy at the drawing board- but I can't find it explained in terms of CC0, CC-BY CC-BY-SA. But is this for the drawing, the works in construction, the completed work- and how does that affect derivatives. How does this affect all the local road patterns that have been realigned due to the contract- using engineering drawings. A French wiki explains fr:ouvrage d'art and shows three photos- Millau, fr:Viaduc de Garabit and Pont du Gard. Millau- I have been told my photos are a copyvio, I am about to upload some photos of the Viaduc de Garabit, floodlit- can I, or does the lighting artist hold copyright? The Pont du Gard seems pretty safe. So, do we have a considered stand based on legal fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

ClemRutter, you'd be best off asking at commons:COM:VP/C, with reference to commons:COM:FOP#France. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting question - but not relevant to HS3 - British sites, British copyright rules...
France (and Belgium) are quite tricky when it comes to copyright of architecture/engineering sites and depends on date of death of architect/designer etc (so you can photograph the Eiffel Tower during the day and publish the results, but any photos taken at night cannot be widely published as the designer of the lighting is still around), and there is no Freedom of Panorama in those countries.
Take a look at the warning at the commons category Millau Viaduct - where most of the photos are long range... I guess there is a cut-off depending on how much of the photo is of the work in question, but I've no idea what it is... Robevans123 (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing concrete, the rule in question is commons:Commons:De Minimis, which says that the copyright of an object within a photo is important if the picture would cease to be useful if that object were not there, or if the photo was clearly taken for the purpose of showing that object. So for long-range stuff you can maybe argue that the valley is enough reason to take a photo. There was a good example I remember several years back when the Burj Dubai had just been built. There was a photo showing an array of buildings on the waterfront. But the Burj is in the middle, and because of how tall that is, the other buildings fill about the bottom 1/4 of the photo. Because the photo was clearly framed due to the Burj's presence, that did not meet DM, however once it was cropped down to get rid of say the top half of the photo, then it passes DM because each individual copyrighted element is now DM. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

New Street split

Someone has decided without any discussion to split out Birmingham New Street railway station and Grand Central tram stop (which is properly called grand Central New Street station tram stop). Does this not go against the general consensus that multimodal stations should be covered on one article? What do people here think. G-13114 (talk)

I agree with the split; if the trams actually ran into New Street you'd have a case, but just being nearby doesn't make Grand Central tram stop a part of New Street, any more than Buchanan Street subway station is a part of Glasgow Queen Street, St Andrew Square tram stop is a part of Edinburgh Waverley or Tower Hill tube station is a part of London Fenchurch Street. Even if one accepts the claim that New Street is "multimodal" because it has a tram stop nearby (by which logic virtually every major station in the country is "multimodal", since they're almost invariably near a bus station), in a decade of writing about UK railways on Wikipedia I'm unaware of the general consensus that multimodal stations should be covered on one article; it's sometimes done when there's little to say about the tram/tube station so it can be crammed into a paragraph in the parent article, but there's never been a consensus AFAIK that splitting off the stations is discouraged provided there's enough material about both halves to sustain full articles. If such a consensus does exist, it's certainly honoured more in the breach than in the observance, as King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, Euston tube station, Waterloo tube station, Shadwell DLR station and of course the separate Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) and Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) attest. ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
In this case, the split makes sense, and would throw in another example of Holborn Viaduct vs City Thameslink which have no common history aside from being virtually next door to each other. I would treat whether to split out a tube station into a spinout article like any other on the project - use common sense and see if the combined article would make them too large (eg: Waterloo) or not possible to cover under a single topic (eg: Kings X St Pancras). If it ever got expanded (which is possible), Birmingham Snow Hill might be a candidate for splitting into historic and current as technically they are two completely different stations under a completely different timeline. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I can see several problems with your argument 1) railway stations which are properly integrated joint rail/bus interchange stations, as opposed to just having a bus stop nearby are generally called X Interchange (examples being Bradford Interchange or Hull Paragon Interchange) so your point about all station being intermodal doesn't hold where there is a designated interchange. 2) The examples you give have enough material for extensive stand alone articles, so splitting makes sense, this clearly isn't the case here as there's only a couple of paragraphs of information for the tram stop, and there's unlikely to be much more. 3) The correct name of the stop is Grand Central New Street Station as can be seen HERE so it is clearly intended as the interchange 4) there are already precedents for this at East Croydon station and Sheffield station which have tram stops directly outside them. I don't think given the above splitting here can really be justified. G-13114 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:NCUKSTATIONS states that both need to be in the same building for xx station to be used, like Manchester Piccadilly or Wimbledon where the tram stops are entirely within the confines of Network Rail owned buildings. Grand Central is entirely outside of the station perimeter on Birmingham Council land. Both journey planner [3] and Midland Metro [4] refer to the station as Grand Central, not Grand Central New Street as does the signage at the stop. This image from above appears to be showing Grand Central as the name, with New Street Station as more of a fyi. In terms of others like East Croydon and Sheffield, the tram stops are located outside the parameters of the stations, so probably should be split. NevHil43 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't see any logic behind the same building criteria, and I can't see any consensus for that criteria on the article talk page. Surely whether a tram line runs into a building or not is merely an accident of geography and architecture. For example the only reason the tram stop is in the same building as Manchester Piccadilly is because it happened to have a large and empty undercroft below it that was perfect to put a tram stop in, and in Wimbledon, the tram line ran on a former rail line into the station. In the case of New Street or Edinburgh or Croydon say, due to the architecture and geography no such convenient way existed to physically built the tram line into the same building. But the intention was clearly of an interchange. Where the tram stop is clearly an interchange with a railway station. As most tram stops don't warrant a long article, it would seem to me to be the best option simply merge them. G-13114 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I think "same building" is something that can only be a something to consider at most. East Croydon tram stop is on the station forecourt and would be in the same building if the canopy were extended a little and I think Sheffield is similar. East Croydon is more integrated than Vauxhall mainline and tube station are for example. Heathrow Terminal 4 tube and rail stations are in the same building yet are clearly separate entities. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Think the point of the same building convention is to try and draw a definitive line, otherwise it becomes a bit subjective. But do agree, it needs to be applied using common sense. If the tram stop was actually within the station’s boundaries or had a common name, then the case to merge would be stronger, but neither is the case so agree with the split.
Many of the tram stop articles on the Manchester Metrolink and Midland Metro networks, are fairly small and not overly notable, being little more than bus shelters, apart from the ones that had prior histories as railway stations. If this article is to be redirected, should probably be as part of a more wide ranging discussion to come up with a threshold for notability, because if this one goes, so too should many of the others. While the primary intent of Grand Central most likely was to create a interchange with the station, it also has other purposes like serving the shopping centre from which it takes its name, so the argument could be made that the shopping centre should be the redirect target. NevHil43 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I think one of the main reasons the stop wasn't called New Street, is because the stop is actually located on Stephenson Street rather than New Street, so calling it New Street would have been a misnomer. That's why the longer version of the name is Grand Central New Street Station as can be seen on the sineage on the stop itself HERE. Also the Grand Central centre is completely integrated with the railway station, it's almost impossible to separate one from the other. I'm generally in favour of tram stops having their own articles, saying they shouldn't is a big can of worms, as many in Manchester and Birmingham and Croydon and elsewhere were formerly railway stations, or on the site of former railway stations, these would qualify for an article automatically. So it's easier just to let all of them have their own articles for the sake of simplicity and consistency. That said I can't really see a case for it in this case. G-13114 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

So it's easier just to let all of them have their own articles for the sake of simplicity and consistency. That said I can't really see a case for it in this case. And yet you are want to delete this one? Seems you are unwilling to accept that the stop and railway station are actually completely separate, which to date has been the opinion of all other editors. I readily concede that it was correct to originally set up as part of the New St station article on the assumption it would take the name and run into the station. But now that it is complete, this has turned out not to be the case.

In the image above, Grand Central is in a slightly thicker font than New Street Station, indicating the latter is more of a secondary change here for New Street Station line in the same way that the onboard screens describe it as Grand Central (for New Street Station). The evidence seems fairly clear that Grand Central is the name with Journey planner, Midland Metro, National Rail, Network West Midlands, Transport for West Midlands and the on board announcements (Youtube clip 4:05 - 4:15) all describing it as such. NevHil43 (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

British Rail Class 701

Someone has created British Rail Class 701 to describe the new Aventras produced for South Western Railway, using a fan website, AB rail as a source for the Class 701 name. What should we do in this circumstance? The trains clearly will be produced and deserve an article, but the name seems to be rumour at this stage. Could we possibly change it to South Western Railway Aventra trains (better suggestions welcome!) until the name has been announced? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Until the things actually exist, we should probably just have the existing paragraph at Aventra. They haven't been numbering the things sequentially, so until something rolls out with a 701 number on it—or at the very least a press release confirming the numbering—anything else is just educated guesswork. ‑ Iridescent 08:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, does anyone know why the class numbers have increased significantly recently? It's not like NR was running out of numbers - they just never bothered filling things in eg 361-364, 351-356, etc. The only argument I can see is that they ran out of numbers with a 7 in. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is not of absence of gaps in the class number list, but absence of gaps in the TOPS list between 300000 and 399999. (recall that the class number forms the first part of the unit number). TOPS requires a single sequence of unique numbers, that sequence is shared by both units and individual vehicles, and there are already wagons numbered in those blocks. For instance, the old HAA/HEA coal hoppers were 360000-361999, 365000-366129. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, assuming the artists impression is broadly accurate this looks a dead cert to take over from the unlamented London Underground 1956 Stock as the ugliest thing on Britain's rails (assuming you don't count this NI monstrosity). The thing looks like the result of a drunken one-night stand between a Class 333 and a Routemaster bus. ‑ Iridescent 17:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I dunno; those 071/111s look perfectly normal to North American eyes … Useddenim (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
You obviously never rode on the Airedale line when the Pacers and Class 308s were the rolling stock. We didn't care about the aesthetics of the 333s......The joy of all things (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I may be the only person to say it, but I never had a problem with the Pacers when they were clean. People get all nostalgic about the Class 121 but they were an order of magnitude bumpier than the Pacers. ‑ Iridescent 20:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Aventras do just look somewhat droopy. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@The joy of all things: I liked the 308s, much more comfortable than the 333s although more draughty. Don't miss the Pacers; it's bad enough when one shows up on a Lancaster turn. Nthep (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The trailers of the 308s (driving and intermediate) had Gresley bogies: great ride quality. Bogie stock doesn't pitch: the pacers pitched horribly, particularly on the sinuous 1 in 75 downhill from Sough summit on the Bolton-Blackburn line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The 308s were unreliable, the pacers shook like a skeleton at a disco; the classes they replaced (101,110 etc) had a bumpy ride quality, but they were older; the 142/144's were downright shaky from the start. The 333s were a blessed relief, no matter what Iridescent says about their look, we just appreciated a higher availability percentage. The first generation units also offered the joy of being able to look out of the right hand side of the cab.......The joy of all things (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, suggest this just be redirected back to the Aventra article and then reinstated once the class number is confirmed by a reliable source. NevHil43 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have done this, we can restore the content to whatever the correct name is later. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why shouldn't ABRail be regarded as a reliable source? Just because it is managed by a rail enthusiast, doesn't mean it is unreliable. According to Google it is referred to as a source around 40 times by other Wiki rail articles. In the absence of the RSL being publically available it seems to me that the ABRail database is the next best thing. Spookster67 (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually 31 articles. I agree that it should be removed as a source from all those articles in which it currently appears, since the quickest glance at it shows that isn't and never will be an appropriate source for Wikipedia purposes. ‑ Iridescent 15:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it is not a WP:RS. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

disused-stations.org.uk

Can I get a show of hands as to what we think of http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/ as a reliable source eg: would you accept it in a GA nomination? I have seen it turn up all over the place, particularly with respect to specific dates. I prefer to use book sources where possible, but from what I can tell, the site is written by subject experts, and pragmatically I can't see the information presented being any less reliable than a random Amberley book I find in my local library for basic facts. In a more general sense, I think we need to accept that the web is now perfectly suitable for expert enthusiast sources (that are not generally updatable by the general public) and those shouldn't fall foul of WP:SPS provided enough people trust the information is factually correct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've always found it to be quite accurate when compared against book sources. G-13114 (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As long as you're using the material by Nick Catford himself rather than the user-generated fluff in the forums I'd consider it a RS by Wikipedia standards. Catford is a respected, published authority on the topic of derelict buildings, and self-published works in these circumstances don't fall under Wikipedia's general prohibition. I'd add the proviso that if publications from more specialist sources (Jim Connor, Ian Allan etc) disagree with Catford over dates, I'd go with what they say rather than what he says. ‑ Iridescent 06:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Liverpool and Manchester Railway RDT

Can anyone explain why there appears to be a RDT called from a template on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway article, but on editing it the template doesn't exist. The RDT is not displaying properly in the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It indeed doesn't exist. That's because the route diagram is directly in the article, not transcluded from a template. {{BS-header}} is designed with the assumption that the appropriate template exists if you supply it as a parameter. I've removed it, so you won't get the erroneous buttons anymore. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Island Line a train operating company or a brand name?

Bit confused by the new naming of Island Line (train operating company).   JaJaWa |hello 

AFAIK it's a brand name. The TOC for IoW services is now South Western Railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Slightly more complicated; it's a brand name now, but it used to be a TOC in its own right (it was wholly owned by Stagecoach, but was an independent company and not officially connected to SWT). We should probably have a stand-alone article on the pre-2007 TOC—we don't try to merge UERL with London Underground—but that would mean a lot of work, on a topic about which very few people care. (Many people are interested in the former steam companies, or the underground pioneers; very few people want to read about Stagecoach's and Connex's abandoned shell companies. Even the major former TOCs that used to be all over the headlines on a weekly or even daily basis barely get read nowadays.) ‑ Iridescent 21:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Island line was a stand alone TOC until 2007 when it was merged into the South Western franchise and became a brand name of South West Trains. Much like Gatwick Express ceased being a TOC and became a brand name of Southern which in turn is now a brand name of Govia Thameslink Railway. There probably is a case to split each of these, but is anybody interested in doing so? Finchfrog (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute at London Waterloo station

Could you pop over to the discussion at Talk:London Waterloo station#Protection (which is now full-protected) and help us get a consensus? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_40&oldid=1137360871"