Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 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I used to be strongly opposed to these on grounds of clutter and of how quickly they go out of date, but am gradually coming to see the arguments in favour.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:Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Rail logo white.svg
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo British Rail.svg
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Rail logo white.svg
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BR arrows.png
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:London Rail.svg

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

• {{vk}}
• {{vd}}
• {{vote move}}

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)

---

• Georgetown railway station (Scotland) → ?
• Houston railway station (Scotland) → ?
• Patna railway station (Scotland) → ?
• Stirling railway station, Scotland → ?
• Perth railway station, Scotland → ?
• Clunes railway station, Scotland → ?
• Grange railway station (Banffshire) → ?
• Banff railway station (Aberdeenshire) → ?
• Hatton railway station (Aberdeenshire) → ?
• Williamstown (East Lothian) railway station → ?
• Crawford (South Lanarkshire) railway station → ?
• Armadale (West Lothian) railway station → ?

– 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)

• D, to maintain consistency throughout WP:UKT (since, despite multiple referenda, Scotland is still part of the U.K.) Useddenim (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• D - WP:NCUKSTATIONS is clear. It should be noted that if you're suggesting a change to WP:NCUKSTATIONS, the talk page of a small station in Scotland is not the most appropriate location. Jeni ^(talk) 08:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly suggest moving to a more appropriate discussion venue, such as the talk page of WP:NCUKSTATIONS rather than hiding it away. Jeni ^(talk) 08:32, 2 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.