Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:02, 4 December 2007 (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2007, 4.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
Daily new article search search criteria talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Rail transport in Germany talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
This box:

B&O passenger trains

I've just created a new article Royal Blue (B&O train) and also did a major edit on Capitol Limited (B&O). JGHowes talk - 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Branch bars for Metra

On the article about Metro-North's New Haven Line, there are separate routeboxes and color bars for the New Canaan Branch, Danbury Branch and Waterbury Branch. Shouldn't there be the same provisions for various branches of Metra, such as the Blue Island, South Chicago, & McHenry Branches be added? --DanTD 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably, depending on how distinct the branches are. Technically it poses no great challenge. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List class now appears in the assessment statistics

The person maintaining the bot that gathers all of the assessment statistics has updated the bot to count list-class articles now (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Rail transport articles by quality statistics for our current statistics). The discussion that led to this mentions adding FL-Class for Featured lists and developing a similar grading scale for lists that aren't quite at FL level yet. I'm working on testing some updates to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner to properly handle FL class and to update the List class wording. Slambo (Speak) 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My test template is now updated to properly handle the List- and FL-Class articles for all projects. I plan to slide it in place later tonight. Slambo (Speak) 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Thanks for keeping things up-to-date! --DP67 (talk/contribs) 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The update is in place now. Slambo (Speak) 12:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another afd

Corning (Amtrak station) has been nominated for deletion, primarily on the basis of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please leave your comments on the deletion discussion. Slambo (Speak) 12:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this isn't exactly a train station since no scheduled passenger trains stop there. It's a stop for Amtrak's thruway coaches. Greyhound also uses it and it's a hub for local transit. --Oakshade 16:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, has it ever been a train station before? ----DanTD 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone mentioned in the AFD page that the station was built recently (late 1990s, I think) as an Amtrak motorcoach station next to tracks such that it could become a station to serve trains directly if Amtrak California's Capitol service is extended there. Many of the resources in my personal reference library don't cover structures this new. Slambo (Speak) 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rail article suggested for Featured Article Review

Another editor has suggested that the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) article might not be featured article quality and stated his objections in the review proposal. It was removed from the main review page because the nominator put up three other articles at the same time for review. However, this gives us a chance to be a little proactive with this nom so we can clear up some of the problems before the review request is added again. If you have time, please view the objection list and work on the items that you can to help keep this article at FA status. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk question

Someone has asked on the Reference desk here what you call the platform on the back of a caboose where politicians would stand on a whistle-stop tour. I Googled and came up with "platform", but I can't believe there isn't a more colorful railroad jargon word for it. If anybody here knows, please answer at the link above or on my talk page. --Milkbreath 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

250 Korean subway station articles up for deletion

This might be every Korean subway station article up for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taepyeong Station. My commentary here is that 250 is a farcical amount of articles on any topic to put up for deletion at once. I think even 20 is too much. 250 might be a record. --Oakshade (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American transportation naming conventions

I'd like to raise the matter of current naming practices for articles on American railway stations. At present we use parenthetical disambiguation by company: [[NAME (SYSTEM station)]] gives Battle Creek (Amtrak station). I find this approach problematic, especially when two or more systems run to the same station, as at La Grange (Amtrak station). La Grange is served by two heavy rail operators, Amtrak and Metra. La Grange (Metra) redirects there. I don't know who owns the station; I doubt it's either of the operators. In addition, we have numerous "Union Station" articles, disambiguated by location: Union Station (Chicago). Finally, we have station articles at their nondeterminate formal names: Kalamazoo Transportation Center and Rome Railroad Station are two examples of this.

I propose that we simplify the naming conventions for all stations served by heavy rail in the United States. Off the top of my head, these would include the following:

I would suggest the following conventions: all stations are identified by their most common name, followed by either "railway station" or "railroad station." In cities or towns with only one station, this would take the form of "Kalamazoo rail(road|way) station." In places with multiple stations, it would take the form "Chicago Union rail(road|way) station" or "Chicago LaSalle Street rail(road|way) station." Formal names for a station would be indicated in the text, but not the article title. Articles which deal with mixed-mode stations (heavy rail & metro), could perhaps drop the road/way part and simply be "X station." Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of La Grange (Amtrak station), this one is actually one of two Metra Stations in La Grange, Illinois. The one shared between Amtrak & Metra is actually called La Grange Road (Amtrak station), while the other one is called La Grange-Stone Avenue (Metra). This is part of the reason I wrote articles on stations like Route 59 (Metra) in Naperville, Illinois, which doesn't serve Amtrak, unlike Naperville (Amtrak station) which serves both Amtrak & Metra. Also, conisdiering the fact that NICTD's South Shore Line shares some stations with Metra, I'm not so sure how something like this would be handled. In Connecticut, you have stations shared by Amtrak, Metro-North and Shore Line East. Plus, you've also got historic and abandoned stations throughout the country to contend with. ----DanTD (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: you'd have articles like Naperville railway station, Route 59 railway station, La Grange Stone Avenue railway station (or just Stone Avenue railway station). Ditto for the Connecticut stations; the goal is to take the operator out of the equation. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using the "Foo railway station" naming style would bring articles about American stations in line with established conventions for British station article names. The best reason that I can see for sticking with the current "Foo (System station)" style is for the pipe trick where we can type [[Foo (System station)|]] and have it autoexpand the link text and display as "Foo". But, this is not a showstopper reason for me to keep this style, and I'm more inclined lately to switch to the British style, except that this could cause issues of ambiguity for a few stations (such as at Aberdeen (Amtrak station) and Aberdeen railway station or Albion (Amtrak station) and Albion railway station). We might want to get the folks at the UK Railways project involved here. Slambo (Speak) 16:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did have the British conventions in mind, yes. There are ways to deal with exceptions: Albion railway station, Michigan, perhaps. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say something else; Long ago, I called for the merger of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Passenger Station in West Palm Beach, Florida into West Palm Beach (Tri-Rail station)(which is also served by Amtrak) simply because they're the same place, and the only thing keeping me from merging the articles myself, is that the name "Seaboard Coastline Railroad Passenger Station" is way too generic. When I saw a similar problem with the station in Deerfield Beach, Florida, I got so frustrated that I created a whole new Deerfield Beach Seaboard Air Line Railway Station article for that one, and redirected three previous versions(Old Seaboard Air Line Railway Station, Deerfield Beach (Tri-Rail station), and Deerfield Beach (Amtrak station)) into it. ----DanTD (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under this system the outcomes would be West Palm Beach railway station and Deerfield Beach railway station. The article would then, in the lead, discuss the historical names and varied roles the station has played. Mackensen (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are there any objections to switching to the "Foo railway station, region" format (where the region part is included as needed for disambiguation) as discussed above? It appears that articles about stations in Australia already follow this format too. I can easily move articles that I run across in Category:Unassessed rail transport articles. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations for further input. If there aren't any objections in the next few days, I'd think we could start moving them. Slambo (Speak) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I might prefer Foo railroad station instead; that's the more common American usage and that preemptively avoids the British dab problems. Mackensen (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have little personal preference between railway and railroad, but I can see where it could bypass some ambiguosity (is that a word or is it ambiguousness?); I guess I've just gotten more used to seeing railway as I work through the unassessed category with all of the British station articles there. Slambo (Speak) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either or, I guess. So long as we abandon parenthetical dab by system--it breaks in any network of complexity. Mackensen (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue with it is if its proper name includes 'Railroad Station' leave it, or if its proper name includes 'Railway Station', leave it. Otherwise interchanging the two, or using the two together for simple categorization will only confuse matters even more and accomplish nothing. My 2¢ worth.
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misapprehend the underlying principle. The goal is to standardize naming, and bring the scattered American stations in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. The "formal name" would not be used as the standard for the article title, unless it fit the naming scheme; so Chicago Union railroad station, but not Kalamazoo Transportation Center. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NJT Routebox Malfunction

Okay, I think I should warn some of the expert editors here that there's a serious malfunction with the routeboxes for the New Jersey Transit stations along the North Jersey Coast Line. ----DanTD (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New s-rail feature

Hello all. I've modified the s-rail set of templates (specifically, Template:S-line/side cell) to populate Category:S-line templates with missing parameters if a problem is detected. At the moment, this is just for templates with a broken termini. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 'Direct' or 'Redirect'.. That is my question..

Lately I have been trying to avoid using redirects and changing redirected links to direct links if at all possible while still providing period correct information by using [[Electro-Motive Diesel|Electro-Motive Division]] type links. What I am wondering is if all the GM-EMD links should be changed to the new EMD article and bypass the old EMD altogether. On the new article it clearly explains that GM has sold Electro-Motive Division and it has now become Electro-Motive Diesel Inc., so that ground is covered. Just my thoughts on streamlining things a little rather than having allot of bouncing around going on and it seems that allot of articles have the old GM-EMD link.. So that's an awful lot of bouncing.

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When writing new text, it's always best to avoid redirects by piping links straight to the appropriate articles. For existing text, my own rule of thumb has been to bypass redirects only on Portal:Trains subpages or when I'm already editing something else in the text. Some editors believe that editing simply to bypass a redirect is not helpful and I've had a couple of my edits bypassing redirects in article space reverted; I see no harm in bypassing longstanding (more than a month old) redirects, especially when the original link text is maintained via pipes. Slambo (Speak) 16:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed all the 'Electro-Motive Division' redirects to direct 'Electro-Motive Diesel' using piping, now to begin to tackle some of the 'General Motors Electro-Motive Division', links to direct links in the same fashion. There are a few hundred of them so it may take me a while.

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clinic for 2008 NMRA convention

I've been confirmed as a clinician for the National Model Railroad Association's 2008 national convention, to be held next July in Anaheim, California. One of the clinics that I will present is titled "What's new with WikiProject Trains?" where I will discuss what has occurred in this project since the 2007 convention in Detroit. When I presented the clinic in Detroit, about half of the clinic time was discussing how to do research and write about rail transport topics and half was about what we are currently doing here at TWP. I was a last minute late night add-on to the Detroit clinic schedule due to a mix up in paperwork outside of my control, but there were attendees at both sessions (this has not happened to me at previous conventions, so I see it as an isolated incident).

I've started a page at User:Slambo/NMRA where I will collect information that should be presented at the clinic next summer, and I invite all participants here to edit and point out what should be included. Any other TWP participants in the area next summer are also invited to register for the convention to tag along and heckle help at the clinic presentation too. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 15:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving intermodal info

I just added the Double-stack car page, and made some small edits to related pages that now link to it. How do I make this page part of this project? I'm interested in seeing improvement all-around on intermodal rail transport. Ideas include: -A page for spine cars. -The rail tranport section of Intermodal freight transport should, IMO, describe operations and things like related economics, and leave detailed description of rail equipment to dedicated pages (once they exist). -The freight equipment template could get a new intermodal category when there are enough pages for it. Jaggedben (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the page; you probably saw my reply on Trainboard earlier today too. There is quite a bit that could be written on this type of car, especially when you look at the number of articles in the railroad press about its development (excellent job in lining up so many references already!). Since the article is about a type of rail freight car, it is automatically within this project's scope. I added the project banner to the article's discussion page so it will be included in the assessment statistics and worklist the next time the assessment bot runs (which is about a three day interval now). I've got one of those interbox connectors in my personal railroadiana collection, so I can easily make a photograph of one (I forget who gave it to me, but I got it when I was still living in California so I've had it for a little over 15 years now).
When we add an article for spine cars, we'll need to include a bit of their development history as well, such as their use by Milwaukee Road in some passenger trains in the 1960s. Agreed on the navbox updates; I almost removed the MOW link, but then thought that they are used in maintaining the lines over which freight is carried too, and thought that even though they aren't normally carried in freight trains (scale test cars aside), the link is therefore appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of rail transport in Ireland

An editor tagged several section of History of rail transport in Ireland as POV and a few days ago deleted them all citing lack of sources, not POV. Unfortunately I don't have any of my Irish railway books assessable, so cannot help, but maybe someone where can have a look and assist. Most of what was deleted is factual, perhaps not that well written and possibly with a POV slant but not total POV and certainly salvageable and, I am sure, can be sourced. If this project has a better place to post this please move it there. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a pass over it to remove the most glaring POV problems. As I know nothing at all about Irish rails the resulting version needs serious scrutiny to make sure I haven't made a mess of things. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herald deletions

I've discovered that one of the bots has gone over a number of the articles on railroads and deleted the herald image for lacking fair-use rationales. I found this on Consolidated Rail Corporation but it's not the only example. Mangoe 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I've seen a problem with a logo, I've gone ahead and added the appropriate rationales to the image pages. I haven't been watching betacommandbot's contribs because there are so many images it goes through that don't relate to rail transport. The rationale on Image:Canadian Pacific Logo 1996.png is an example of what the image page should look like for the logo to stay; at a minimum, it should look like the rationale on Image:NMRA logo.gif. The fair use enforcement has become rather strict and while most of the rail logo uses that I see qualify, we need to make sure to have all our ducks in a row to keep them. Slambo (Speak) 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the damage is done. I don't know how many herald images have been deleted because of this, and frankly I'm rather pissed that we have a bot that is going around doing destructive things rather than add the FUR that, in context, is rather obvious. By myself I simply don't have time to check all the appropriate articles and I'm not all that keen on dealing with the seemingly ever-changing fair-use rules. Mangoe 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did upload a new Conrail logo. That should do until some paranoid android or some other paranoid humanoid decides to delete it
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to track down new versions of SEPTA & MBTA logos, and even some of then logos SPUI used to have, and put them back in the previous red links. ----DanTD 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Montreal commuter rail

Category:Montreal commuter rail has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.99.122 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains&oldid=175666662"