Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2007, 3

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


Template overhaul

All, I've significantly overhauled the internals of s-rail and s-line. This was prompted by discussions with the folks in Australia, and a desire to integrate their color/formatting scheme into the existing system. The result is that s-line now has two modes of output–standard and "AUS". You can see examples of both at User:Mackensen/Flarp. In order to make the colored borders join properly I've re-designed both templates to function without s-start; new instances should use {{s-rail-start}} instead. The second table on /Flarp demonstrates the new versions of s-rail and s-line with the old s-start; as you can see only AUS-formatted templates break (and not badly, at that), so there's no need to go round replacing s-start with s-rail-start at the moment. The switch from standard to AUS formatting is accomplished via {{{{{SYSTEM}}} style}} and the export parameter. This is more of any FYI than anything; I invite everybody to check the code at User:Mackensen/s-line and User:Mackensen/S-rail. If there are no objections I'll merge changes in 24 hours or so. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Any minor formatting glitches probably result from s-start; replace it with s-rail-start and see if that helps. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to investigate further, but it appears that the changes adversely affected the articles in Category:RTA Rapid Transit stations. Switching to s-rail-start has no apparent effect (on preview, at least). I'd appreciate it if somebody could take a look. - EurekaLott 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it. The problem was actually unrelated to all of this: Hillrhpc (talk · contribs) created a malformed style template ({{GCRTA style}}. I've fixed it. Mackensen (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks for the prompt repair. - EurekaLott 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Front Page featured article!

Rail transport in India, August 16, 2007 UTC Congrats to all of those who put together this excellent article. --Oakshade 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Subway (rail) or Metro should be an article, not a redirect

The page Subway is a disambig page, which contains a link to Subway (rail), which redirects to Rapid transit, as does Metro. However, it seems to me that this page should be not a redirect, but should be an article on its own. The redirect makes it seem as if the terms "subway" and "metro" are interchangeable with "rapid transit," however a subway or metro may not be rapid transit, and vice versa. Most subway and metro systems are rapid transit systems, but systems such as the Newark City Subway, SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolley Lines, and the Los Angeles Metro Blue/Green/Gold Lines are not (first two are trams, the ladder are light rails). At the same time, systems like the RTA Red Line (also known as "The Rapid") and the Miami-Dade Metrorail are both rapid transit systems, but not subways. A subway is basically an underground rail system, which may or may not be rapid transit. In fact, the world's first subway, the MBTA Green Line, is neither rapid transit as well.

I think that the redirect should be removed, and the Subway (rail) page or the Metro page should be an article, with sections giving brief explanations of various types of subways/metros (including a {{main}} link in each section), including rapid transit, as well as trams, light rail, people movers, etc. I think the Subway (rail) page should hold the article, but to keep a worldwide point of view on this topic, some may prefer that Metro is used instead. According to the page's history, it seems as if it was always a redirect page and never had an article. I'm willing to write the article, but I wanted to get feedback first so I can avoid any potential edit wars. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles should stay exactly as they are. The fact that the Newark City Subway is called a "subway" (which, BTW, it's not any more -- it's "Newark Light Rail" now, since the Broad Street extension) doesn't mean it's a subway in the generic sense. The Los Angeles Gold Line isn't a metro, a subway, or rapid transit, and it isn't called any of those things, so I'm not sure what was the point of including it in your examples. Subway as a generic term always refers to rapid transit, the fact that some rail lines that are not rapid transit are underground notwithstanding, even if they are called "subways." Trams, light rail and people movers already have their own articles, and none of them are subways (in the generic sense of the word "subway"). --Tkynerd 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
A "subway" is not necessarily underground (New York City Subway), nor is an "elevated" necessarily above-ground (Chicago 'L'). I agree that the current status works. (By the way, the Green Line is not the first subway; I believe the London Underground is. --NE2 03:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point about the MBTA Green Line: it was the first subway in the U.S., but not the first in the world (that was, indeed, the London Underground). --Tkynerd 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thats what I meant—the MBTA Green Line was the first subway in the U.S., not the world. Therefore, Subway (rail) should change from its redirect to Rapid transit, if not have its own article, than it should at least be redirected to Rail terminology or something, but its present redirect goes against WP:NPOV. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. While the Green Line tunnel is generally referred to as a "subway," probably simply because it was the first transit rail tunnel in the U.S. (where the term "subway" originated as a term for rail transit), ordinary people (i.e., not railfans) understand the word "subway" to refer to rapid transit. The redirect is appropriate and should be left as it is. And I perceive your reference to WP:NPOV here as a bit overdramatic. --Tkynerd 12:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tram and tram system

Can I please get more input on Talk:Tram system on whether the split done a while ago or the recent merge was a good idea? Thank you. --NE2 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the article as it is; in fact, with some neatening up I think it could make FA status. My one real issue with it is that there are about five times as many pictures in it as are reasonable. Mangoe 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about 'five times as many', but there are too many pictures. Would suggest pruning many of the modern pictures which are mostly quite similar.
EdJogg 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It won't get through a GA review without quite a few more references. Slambo (Speak) 17:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

CityRail templates

Recently s-rail/s-line was introduced to Transperth, Transwa, Great Southern Railway, and CountryLink networks (all in Australia). As part of this conversion the "AUS" export style was devised for these templates, allowing for two entirely different output formats within the same basic structure. You can see the difference at User:Mackensen/Flarp. Now, there has been a proposal to convert the CityRail articles as well, but disagreement over the formatting method. I should emphasize that it's trivial to switch between standard and AUS, so as long as the idea of s-rail/s-line is accepted we're most of the way there. At User:Mackensen/Flarp is an example of Central railway station, Sydney, with a full s-rail/s-line implementation. At the moment, CityRail outputs in the "standard" form. If you look at CountryLink, you get an idea of what the "AUS" display would look like. Comments welcomed. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The setup was agreed upon a long time ago - partly because it helps distinguish the intercity and suburban line colours which you can't do in the s-line standard template. We should not go against that. I'm fed up with having to defend it every couple of months just because one particular user doesn't like it. I'm quite happy to adopt the s-line template, but we should keep the colour scheme as is. JRG 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It can move there if you like. I left at note at WikiProject Sydney inviting those editors as well. I personally don't have a stake in formatting--I'm interested in the information presented. Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That's ok if there's a link. I've removed my objection to the place. I just don't see the point of changing something that's worked for a long time - but I'm happy to change the template for ease of formatting. JRG 01:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've switched the formatting style so you can see what it looks like. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yuk, the colours are too garish IMHO. I prefer the original version. I'm all for consistency across Wikipedia, this goes against the look in articles like the London underground etc. Who cares if you can't distinguish InterUrban colours and suburban colours, there are just extensions of the same line after all. Its time for a change.Quaidy 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What the London Underground has to do with this, I have no idea - Cityrail is organised differently from the London Underground and the colour coordination needs to reflect that. The intercity lines are not "just extensions" - they are separate services and need to be distinguished as such. I don't think there's any reasonable argument for change. JRG 03:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to qualify these comments as I just took a look at the Flarp page above - I would agree with Quaidy that it looks more garish than the existing pages do. My suggestion which I have already made to Mackensen is to try this: use the coloured bars as in the original version, but add the borders as are used on the CountryLink boxes. But we still need to differentiate intercity and suburban services. Any suggestions? JRG 03:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What London underground has to do with it is that I think a bit of consistancy for the looks of rail networks across Wikipedia is of value. But that's just my opinion and I am OK with nice disagreement, please be civil. I'm not so sure we should differentiate between colours for inter-urban and suburban, otherwise do we differentiate between the 'hashed' line style that is used for the Sydenham peak services on the East Hills line etc as well? We are only taking colours here, not merging the line boxes into one- Central Coast will still have a separate box to the Northern etc. The suburban and Interurban lines are not stand alone and self contained lines anyway- there has always been a degree of overlap between them- with peak hour extension of North Shore services up the Main North, and occasional suburban services drifting down the Illawarra beyond Waterfall. Its only been recently that Cityrail has changed the interurban lines to the grey with the coloured blobs for stations. Who knows what they will do next week. The other think I was thinking of is for the City Circle having a single box, treating it as its own line, similar to this for Circular Quay, once the code gets fixed:
{{s-rail-start}}
{{s-rail|title=CityRail}}
{{s-line|system=CityRail|line=City Circle|previous=Wynyard|next=St James}}
{{s-end}}

Quaidy 05:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about the compromise formatting method. Now, as to the CityRail itself, I'm looking at the CityRail maps on the official website and it doesn't look as though any of the services mentioned double back through Central; they terminate at either Town Hall or Museum. Maybe I'm missing something here. Mackensen (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They don't really terminate - the map just does that for ease of use. The services actually keep going, most terminate at Central and proceed empty to a turnback at Macdonaldtown between the Illawarra and Inner West lines, some just "swap" between lines (eg. Airport Line trains become South Line trains, Inner West trains become Bankstown Line trains). That's the way it is in reality, and is portrayed at the moment. Town Hall and Museum have no terminating facilities at all - it's just portrayed that way on a map for ease of use for passengers. JRG 04:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, "Flarp" has been modified to demonstrate this third style (as I understand it). The first four lines are shown with the new one ("CRR"). Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's better - but notice that when you double up termini the blue square is still on the right. I think it's better to just have separate boxes for all lines in the right colours. JRG 04:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Railroad Signaling

I've noticed there are many different articles on railroad signals (lighting and semaphore) but none that I can find actually show the various light schemes or Semaphore positions. Has anyone considered adding this to expand an existing article or create one or perhaps several since virtually every railroad uses their own scheme. I wish I had the experience to do this myself but, being a newbie around here I'm not the one to do it. I am not opposed to helping under a mentor if anyone whats to work on this project. --Dp67 | QSO 08:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: on the B&O we have a semaphore system and a color position system, and then you add the C&O you have a different color light system, and then you fold in the Western Maryland with its own color light system, and whatever they used on L&N and SAL and SCL and so forth, and NYC's systems from its ex-Conrail bits..... It is simply too much to document. Nobody attempts to do it; if you want to know, you go to an employee rule book.
The big hole that we've always had in the signalling side is describing all the various methods (CTC, APB, TO&TT, warrants, etc.) as part of a big picture. Some of these have articles, but a lot of those articles are pretty stubby. There's also a tendency to stick in "Albanian signals use purple and yellow vertical stripes" kind of fine detail that doesn't really tell anyone much. It's probably worthwhile, I suppose, to pick one color light system and lay it out in a chart, as an example. I have a complete set of C&O images which I could use to make such a chart. BUt the thing we really need is a systematic explanation. Mangoe 13:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The many, many types of signaling could be a problem for one article as you mentioned which is why I had considered one article per rail system. If systems are similar they could easily be grouped together in one article. Again, this would be allot of work but I thought it might be something neat to add to the project. (Or maybe not)
The main reason why I asked is because I can't seem to find much info on the local rail system here in Mich. I just moved from Maryland and I'm familiar with the CSX and the NEC colour/position scheme but here they use a different system. Instead of the round signal boards with 7 lights, 2 Green straight up and down (Clear), 2 red straight across (Stop), 3 yellow diagonal (Approach) and one white on the bottom which I believe is used for All Clear (Full Speed) when used with the green, or Stop and Go when used with red. Of course there are other variations to distinguish various things as well.
I believe what runs through Battle Creek, MI. is the GT, (Now CN?) they use 2 or 3 lights lined vertically, without positioning 3 colour options per light. I'm not quite sure how the scheme works. Does anyone know? --Dp67 | QSO 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

>Title Misspelled -- Corrected --Dp67 | QSO 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New York City Subway station naming convention

Over at WP:NYCPT, we are trying to reach a consensus on how New York City Subway stations should be named, because the subway system uses various names and punctuation formats for its stations, and users have "move-warred" articles in the absence of an agreed-upon guideline. The proposed convention is at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention. If you are interested, please visit the proposal and comment on the talk page. Thanks! TLK'in 07:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Route Diagrams

Is there a task force I could join to help out with adding route diagrams to articles? I looked at the maps group, but it didn't really seem like the right place.--Max Talk (+) 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See the talk at WP:TRAIL for some interested people, mostly it seams they are in the UK. The technology comes from the continent (mostly Germany) and it came along after the maps task force, and in most places relatively easily does the normal job the cartographers at the maps task force (i use and then remove the map needed tag when a wp:trail map comes along). Pickle 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville (Amtrak station) not Union Station (Jacksonville)

Somebody messed up the routeboxes by redirecting all Amtrak lines leading to Jacksonville, Florida, so they'd all end up in the former Union Station. According to that article, Jacksonville Union Station hasn't served any lines since 1974. How do I fix this? ---- DanTD 13:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bustitution --NE2 19:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people just take it upon themselves to flag something for deletion because they consider something to be 'Lacking Public Interest' just because it doesn't interest them.. It's a shame but its true. I tried to create an article about The Steam Railroading Institute which is another train museum here in Mich. and someone had it flagged for deletion before I could even finished the first paragraph.. Stating it wasn't within the public interest. Oh well.. --Dp67 | QSO 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just For The Gee Wizz Factor :)

Just a little shameless plug.. ;) Railroad related but not exactly Wiki related. I've applied for a Conductors position for Norfolk Southern. It's a career I should have pursued long ago but I've been too busy chasing my tail! LOL Not sure how long it will take to get any answers but wish me luck! Should be a more stable career than radio! --Dp67 | QSO 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Way cool; best of luck to you. I know a few railroad employees here in Wisconsin and boy do they have some stories to tell! To connect it back to TWP... if there's any way to get some more documentation and reference material (legally!!!) that can be used to improve articles here, I would heartily recommend following up on it. B-) Slambo (Speak) 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


No word yet.. I'm not sure how long their process is but with the homeland security issues these days I'm sure that they do a pretty exhaustive background check. Not that I have to worry about that. I'd also love to get a hold of an operator manual and a conductor manual. I don't think there is any laws prohibiting anyone from having them might only just be that railroad co.'s hold everyone accountable for their own copy. I do know that for NS the manual is a mandatory part of your tools and must be with you at all times. If you don't have it with you when you report for work you could get sent home, if you loose it you've got some explaining to do! Might find some on ePay or somthing I haven't checked yet.

Marshall (Amtrak station) & T&P Depot

Before I throw this suggestion out tor Wikipedia's general merger page, I'd like to know how the rest of you feel about the possiblilty of merging both Marshall (Amtrak station) & T&P Depot, since the Marshall (Amtrak station) is housed in the T&P Depot. ---- DanTD 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject UK Trams on the LIRR?

Resolved

I just created an article for the Massapequa (LIRR station) and when I added the talk page tag, I found it included a "WikiProject UK Trams" tag that I can't find in order to erase. What happened there? ---- DanTD 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my goof; I was trying to add the UKTrams parameter to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner and missed a closing }}. It's fixed now. You may see others temporarily have it until the site catches up with the template updates. In other words "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." B-) Slambo (Speak) 15:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
And there was me saying on the UK Trams talk page that you knew what you were doing...   :-p
EdJogg 11:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And you said there shouldnt be separate banners... Bluegoblin7 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (ex-member)

UK Trams and TWP banners

Yes, it is a bit ironic. UKTrams=yes is a parameter to the banner for WikiProjects related to rail transport, just like UK=yes for WikiProject UK Railways, Scotland=yes for WikiProject Transport in Scotland and NZR=yes for WikiProject New Zealand Railways. Really, the parameter doesn't hurt any project, and it consolidates the banners for rail related pages into one box. Both the UK and NZR projects also have associated importance parameters, and I've received a request to add an importance parameter for Scotland (which I hope to have completed tonight). The {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner also supports the small=yes and nested=yes options to display it in smaller formats on heavily updated talk pages.
If you want to maintain a separate banner for UK Trams, you won't get any argument from me; I'm also not forcing anyone to use the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner exclusively. In my view, it's better if there are both options. If an article is applicable to both WikiProject Trains and WikiProject UK Trams, you have the option of using one banner to declare its applicability to both projects. If an article is applicable to only UK Trams, then by all means use the UK Trams banner and not the WikiProject Trains banner. The WikiProject New York City Public Transportation project also covers non-rail transport articles, so they use their own banner for those articles and TrainsWikiProject for rail transport articles. However, if an article is featured in either the "Selected article" or "Did you know" section of Portal:Trains, then I will normally add {{TrainsWikiProject}} to the talk page with the appropriate parameters including portalSAweek and/or portaldykdate so I have a reminder when I come back to it at a future date that the article was used there in the past. Slambo (Speak) 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
while i have officially left, i couldnt resist replying to this - are you agreeing with me? Bluegoblin7Bluegoblin7 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I never disagreed in the first place. It is ironic considering the discussion elsewhere, and I see value (and there is significant precedent) in having both banners as described above. I notice that you've added quality and importance parameters to {{UK Trams}}, so I'll work on integrating those categories into {{TrainsWikiProject}} as well. Slambo (Speak) 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
no? then why was i told that "no-one could change all the banners to trams with trains"? I don;t mind doing it, if it applies mainly to that article. I dont mind it being in trains, just not that inconspicuously, and not when the primary focus is WP:UK Trams, instead of WP:RAIL. And yes, it looks like i've returned, at least until this saga is sorted, for whoever takes over the project. Bluegoblin7 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The biggest reason not to simply replace the banners is for category inclusion. Right now, if you want to list UK Trams first on the talk page, the best method is to show both banners. You can even go so far as to put {{UK Trams}} on the page above {{TrainsWikiProject}}; I don't think the order of the banners on the page matters quite as much. Showing both banners ensures that all appropriate categories from both banners are used. The page source would then look something like this ... 

... some text that may be above the banners ...
{{UK Trams}}
{{TrainsWikiProject|foo...}}
... some text that may be below the banners ...

There are quite a few pages that show multiple banners with other WikiProjects even when there is an associated parameter within TWP. See Talk:Blue Line (Washington Metro) or Talk:Shinkansen for examples. Slambo (Speak) 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So can we agree to do this? will you not revert me? At least until there is another solution. Do you mind putting this on the project page also? it's a good idea to do this i think. I people dont like it, then tough. also, it saves you a job at putting in all the parameters etc. Bluegoblin7 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to put the UK Trams banner above the TrainsWikiProject banner on article talk pages within both projects' scopes, go right ahead. As I've shown in the examples above, other projects do that already. Slambo (Speak) 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Should UKTrams=yes be removed from the TWP banner then? Duplication is not the best alternative. Best towork a way to get categorisation (if it is really necessary) work on TWP rather than having both banners on the page. Best precisely to put in the effort and get the inclusion nicely done rather than what appears to be a half jobby. Not sure tough is the apropriate term for living with the current arrangement Bluegoblin7. Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Pickle UK (talk · contribs) has expressed similar concerns regarding the presence of two banners as well as the duplication of banner information: [1] on the Talk:Tramlink page. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Reducing and consolidating the number of banners on a talk page is the main reason that I include the parameters in {{TrainsWikiProject}} in the first place. Until we have a method to show one banner and optionally specify which of the subprojects to show in the top of the box, listing both banners and not using the parameter in TWP is the best option to show subprojects above TWP. UKTrams is the only rail transport subproject (so far) that has been this vocal about which project is listed at the top of the box. Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't it simply be sufficient to have UKTrams in the TWP banner? I first rm the UKT banner and placed UKT in the TWP big banner. Bluegoblin then readded the UKT banner but without removing UKT from TWP... A third user repeated by edit and removed UKT standalone banner. Bluegoblin then added it again. Clearly there's a problem. I feel it unwarranted to promote such or such project on a page, UKT is well represented in the TWP banner as are other WP. I understand the founder of UKT wishing to have exposure but i fear it will amount to advertising rather than applying both consistency and sobre information output. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Either showing both banners or showing just the TWP banner with the appropriate parameters would be enough to indicate applicability to both projects. As far as I know, there is no official policy stating which method should be used to include an article in multiple projects; my personal preference is to combine all the rail-related projects into TWP to reduce the number of banners on a page, while other editors want the most specific projects listed first. The way I see it, as long as all applicable projects are listed in some way whether they be consolidated into one banner or in multiple banners, then the page is sufficiently tagged. This discussion and others that I have participated in elsewhere tend toward a consolidated banner preference, so I do what I can to help out by adding appropriate parameters to the TWP banner.

In the long run, disputing whether a specific talk page should have one or two banners on it distracts the involved editors from improving the articles. I accept that some editors want the independent subproject banners displayed on a talk page (WP:THOMAS members, for example, have said so to me in the past), so I am usually hesitant to remove them even when there is a parameter in the TWP banner for them and instead I notice their efforts and get myself a cup of tea (a Darjeeling blend is the flavor in my cup today). In this specific case, I see an editor who is very motivated to work on articles about a particular subtopic within rail transport, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of his article improvements, regardless of how many banners are on the talk pages. Slambo (Speak) 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I seam to have stumbled into this one, going through my watchlist i did some edits before i got to this chat here. My opinion is that where there is a TWP banner, lets use that, obviously if its somehow not trains related then by all means use a standalone uktrams banner. obviously once Slambo get the "UKtrams importance" bit working then its even more useful (TWP allows stuff like imageneeded, mapneeded, unref, etc). But in the bigger scheme of things if this really upsets some one somewhere (i feel I'm missing out on watching a conversation on a talk page I'm not watching somewhere) then I'm all OK with going for a cup of tea too (its not the end of the world!). Pickle 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Pickle UK; less banners, more work on articles. If banners are daughter WP, of same subject, there should be no need for redundance and duplication of banner advertisement-fest. UKT is a TWP daughter project, put in TWP banner. I do not yet se an editor motivated to work on articles about a particulat subtopic within rail transport but someone motived in putting WP banners in articles. You have made the effort to add UKT in the TWP banner, so may it be used so as to not clutter and duplicate banner presence on talk pages. It would seem misguided to concentrate on banner placing or even WP rather than article editing. A third editor has already reverted Bluegoblin's banner-fest here: [2]. I say put UKT in TWP, descrete, efficient, neutral and it is there; only add a second banner if another banner is of another subject (say an area WP + a topic WP). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the UKTrams parameter to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} on August 19 so editors would have the option of using a single banner to show all appropriate rail-related projects in one swell foop; I'm still looking into various strategies to further streamline how this template displays its information so that when there are subprojects identified, the whole banner takes up less space. It really doesn't bother me as much if an editor puts both the subproject and parent project banners on the same talk page. Slambo (Speak) 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you can see it bothers me, where can the decison be made so that the second rail related banner be removed in favour of being included in TWP. You've given your consent to have the UKTP banner present as well as the TWP you can just as well make the decision not the have it included as well. I suppose your original decision was made because no objections were, now that they are there are sure grounds to reconsider your original position. Putting forward such or such project when it is under the umbrella of another WP. Easy to grant a request, why is it so hard to withdraw? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, trams and trains are different things, and, as you might have noticed, UK Trams is NOT a subproject, its a related project, meaning that, technically, it shouldnt be included. Bluegoblin7 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, if you can be bothered to add assessment, and all our new individual ones, then feel free to change every banner. Other wise, stop wasting time here and edit!!!! Bluegoblin7 10:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S, our image has changed aswell btw Bluegoblin7 10:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, nobody needs my permission to reduce the number of banners on an article's talk page when one banner can sufficiently convey the same information as two, nor do they need my permission to put two banners on a page. It's not my decision to make. An editor asked how he could have the subproject shown first, and I suggested displaying the subproject banner above the parent project because it seemed to be the simplest answer to me. My word in this matter is not gospel and I am not the Grand High MuckyMuck of WikiProjects, so please don't take it as a statement from above that it must be done a certain way. Some subprojects want to keep their banners even though parameters exist in TrainsWikiProject to display the same information (the Trains in Japan, Washington Metro and Thomas projects, for example), while others use the TrainsWikiProject banner instead of creating a second banner (the Rapid Transit project banner calls the TrainsWikiProject banner with subway=yes set).

On the question of whether a tram is a train or not, trams normally run on rails, and they haul both passengers and freight (see Image:VW-Cargotram-Dresden.jpg for an example of a freight tram). The train article includes official definitions that a train is one or more powered item of rolling stock that may or may not be coupled to unpowered rolling stock. To my eye, a tram is a specialized type of train, just the same as a diesel multiple unit or even a monorail is a specialized type of train. So I think it is valid to include tram projects in the TrainsWikiProject banner.

I did notice the new image, and I had planned to make the change in the TrainsWikiProject banner to use the new image by this weekend. Slambo (Speak) 11:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to add it - I don't mind reconsidering, using both, but could you possibly add the assessment, and our new banners? Preserved, Proposed, Modern, Blackpool and Historical Trams banners are what we have. On another topic, could Slambo possibly incorporate these as parameters into the main banner, and add maps, fascinating fact and various other ones (please contatc me!) to that same banner! Bluegoblin7 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In the politest was possible isn't Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Trams/Banners creating a lot of banners, could it not somehow do the subproject thing like the TWP banner does. I'm all for adding extra features ;) Overall I'm very "dismayed" that this "fork" has occurred. When we can incorporate various projects in one banner (UK railways, transport in Scotland, London transport, etc) but not UK trams. I'm really with Slambo here in that trams are "rail related" so i think this is a terrible shame.... Pickle 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I know the situation with multiple banners is not ideal: I would like to use parameters, but I have no idea how to add them. Please feel free to incorporate TUK into TWP, but be aware, it needs assesment, the above parameters, a did you knwo parameter, as well as some other which are still in the process on being added. And then theres the hassle of changing our assesment system and changing all the banners. Then theres all the images etc - it turns into a collosal job! If it's just for the sake of finishing this: add TUK to TWP! Bluegoblin7 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What parameters are missing? Surely if they are available for TWP, using those and adding TWP would be appropriate? Sambo, your conversation above clearly shows you advising Blugoblin7 to add his banner on top of the TWP one while it isn't necessarily a blessing it surely is an advice. There clearly is an issue with adding multiple banners for similar projects and efforts were made to incorporate UKTP in the TWP banner. Why not stop this silliness and have a more streamlined banner where everytime a subject is related to rail transport it could have the TWP with chichever regionalism as a parameter? Paramters are already present and could be used by Bluegoblin, I'm sure there's some help on the TWP banner talk page to activate each possible criterion in the banner. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As i understand it, the TWP banner a) doesn't (yet) offer an importance rating for UK trams b) UK trams has (for whatever reason) several banners for their sub projects (not sure how from a coding POV you could create a subproject within the the UK trams subproject bit of TWP) which they would like to have in one banner, c) they would like to have the various stuff like map & image needed, portal (their), DYK, etc. Pickle 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Does one need a UKTP importance rating since one exists for TWP? My first point being that there is little need to have daughter project parameters when TWP has them already; add TWP importance then UKTP as a reginalism. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Youv'e hit the nail on the head there Pickle. That is exactly what we want, and unless someone can be bothered to put all of that into a banner, then i think this discussion is over - it would be a hell of a lot of work, and a really complicated banner. To completly outline what we like, see below: Bluegoblin7 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Far from Bluegoblin7. The present infrastructure accomodates everyone without having such or such project be put before another. God, let's do a Northern England tram project to cater for those tram networks alone... Enough is enough. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
UKT Banner
Class Assessment
Importance Assessment
Fascinating Fact (similar to Did You Know?)
Maps/diagrams needed
All of our "extra" banners putting in one using parameters - to distinguish different trams from other types
Image needed
Perhaps, put Collaboration of the month, and selected article/image inside it.
If anyone wishes to do this, go for it! :) It's just a lot of work, and for this reason, it might be better to have seperate banners. Bluegoblin7 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If those exist for TWP then copy paste them, change the criterion and filter and wotnot and insert them into TWP so that you're happy and we don't have to live with your banner on top of TWP. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, they don't all exist in UKT, and secondly, I have absoultely no idea how to do anything to the templates - id probably mess them up. If I knew what to do, believe me,I would. Bluegoblin7 10:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I know not all parameters don't all exist for UKTP, I've just stated they don't need to! Use TWP's parameters then add UKTP's line in the general banner. Should you want to do it, as stated above copy paste the code used to TWP, use a sandbox, change the settings that refer to TWP and change them to UKTP then once tested insert them in the TWP banner template. Or leave as is, remove the duplication, leave with just tha tlittle line saying there's a British tram WP... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Importance assessments??

The class parameter in TWP now sorts articles into the appropriate UKTrams category if UKTrams=yes is set. I just added UKTrams-importance to TWP as well. The next tasks on the list for the TWP template that I intend to work on are the mapneeded and imageneeded integration (like we currently have with Scotland and NYPT). After that, I'm looking at continuing on the template rework that I've been planning to simplify the template coding and to reduce the box size when there are multiple related projects and task forces to be displayed; this would enable us to more easily add some of the other requested params like the appearance dates for the UKT portal. Some of the other templates I'm looking at for strategy examples include {{WP Australia}}, {{WPBiography}} and {{WPMILHIST}}; once I have a workable test for TWP, I'll pass on a link for review. Slambo (Speak) 15:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work. However, how does one not have more than one importance rating? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What if the class differs between UKT and TWP? I know it doesn't seem likely, but different editors rate different articles differently. So, what do we have? Just importance for now? Cos we need all the others too... Bluegoblin7 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

CS: There are examples in NYPT's scope of low-importance articles that are low-importance to TWP as well; it is most common that where the same importance rating is given for multiple projects it will be low-importance. However, most articles will have different importance ratings between WikiProjects. If the associated WikiProject hasn't specified an importance rating, the article will generally be sorted into that WikiProject's unknown-importance category where a member of that project can further classify it.

BG7: the class shouldn't differ between the two because it's a measure of quality that is independent of all WikiProjects. See Template:Grading scheme (and its talk page) for how the class ratings are broken down (note that the sample articles span several WikiProject scopes). The most common reason for seeing different class specifications on certain talk pages is that some editors only update one or two banners when they assess for quality, while in reality they should all be updated to the same quality rating at the same time. The importance rating, however, can and often will differ between the projects, so there's a separate UKTrams-importance parameter to specify that. For the most part, if an article is sorted into one level and another editor disagrees with the original assessment, the subsequent editor is free to reassess based on this scheme; however, both GA and FA have firmly established review processes that need to be followed before articles can be assigned to these two classes. Slambo (Speak) 19:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get you now. Can you.are you going to add the additional parameters, cos then we might be fully "integrated" Bluegoblin7 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The importance rating shouldn't change since an article is important or not on the scale of Wikipedia not such or such project (Or the Egg WP would have egg with the highest importance rating because they'd love eggs). Since any rating should be the same there shouild be one only, a couple of changes on Totley Tunnel I can see will end up in war fare as usual on Wikipedia (speaking to each other through edit summaries) where two importance ratings are present in stead of a necesary one. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Tramlink Taking the mick? Clearly that will be rectified and not left as is? ... cannot be serious in leaving the banner like this. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
But this is the whole point of the Importance assessments. As that article seems to come within the scope of five different Projects (six if you include the parent 'Trains' project), it has greater or less importance to each project. The assessment should be used to determine which atricles should be worked on first, ie the most important ones. In terms of UKTrams, for example, NONE of the scoped articles are likely to be even mid-importance on a Wikipedia-wide scale (for example, for 'Version 1.0'), however, the Project needs to have some means of determining a priority order for tasks.
Maybe the banner should include a 'global importance' rating too (or is this covered by the WP:Trains rating?)
Perhaps a better question might be, why is this page under the banners of 5/6 different projects, and how are they collaborating to make sure someone works on it effectively?
EdJogg 09:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I just view this as joke... First each and every foresaken project wants their little advertisement, then each project adds their little parameters, I'm sorry, not good enough. It's not good for readers it's not good for us. I'm afraid the setup is not suitable. At the end of the day there's a load of useless duplicated information the clogs up pages and has little incidence of how articles are edited other than adding token branding. I've been diplomatic about duplicated info and promoting projects in front of others but this is going too far. Importance rating was added for UKTWP yet the TWP one is mandatory and remains even if it left blank thus negating the need for a UKTWP importance rating since an article might end up with two ratings. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tramlink... That's an example of why I was looking at a redesign of the display with the next iteration of the banner. I'm looking at other projects' banners to see how they handle multiple subprojects to reduce the overall size and complexity of the displayed banner. As more task forces and subprojects are created (for example, there isn't a WikiProject United States railroads yet...), the need for a more streamlined display will become even more evident to other editors. I have a few possibilities that I'm working on off-wiki, and when I have a good test case, I will put it up for review and comment. Slambo (Speak) 11:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See, that's good news and I know you work on it (well no one else could since the banner is protected). The problem is that some users have jumped on the band waggon and already applying these settings with disregards to looks and clarity. I understand these parameters take time to type and there is code to think about but say couldn't it be done in a sandbox so that users cannot use these settings as yet since requirements are likely to change as soon as you update the banner? I'm really worried about the half done state of things where you can't possibly do everything in one go but users take those changes into consideration too quickly, i.e. before they've been introduced properly. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
My replies on this matter can be seen at Talk:Totley Tunnel and Talk:Tramlink (sorry thats the order i was working through my watchlist). I respect that on something like tramlink, the TWP does look a bit long winded but I'm somewhat insistent that sub project of TWP can have their own importance ratings (this allows their own assessments). When looking at rating IMHO TWP is the global thing which, as Slambo points out, makes rating several US related article interesting since truly on a world wide scale some aren't as important as they are currently rated... Pickle 18:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You're qualifying articles. No article is mpore important than any other and should certianly not be rated by such or such WP which are nothing more than a random group of no ones such as you and I. None of us are qualified to rate the importance of such or such article and it should be, if necessary, up to the community as a whole to rate articles. I've also elaborated on Talk:Totley Tunnel where such abuse of banner-fest can be viewed. Talk:Tramlink is a slightly different matter since that is a whole other job with OTT importance rating-fest. You've not only exagerated, added confusion, added inconsistency but abused the system. All this makes people who do not take part in WP intimidated by this possession of articles through WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain scarlet (talk • contribs) 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ;
a) a yes some article are more important (if you mean project wide) - there is a list somewhere of key articles for every wikipedia (we're going off topic).
b) beyond the pan-wikipedia importance. its been a long standing part of wikipedia for individual wikiproject to rate quality (wiki wide) and importance (within their projects) of article. i find it somewhat strange for you to suddenly object to this practise that has been about for some time (but hey your entitled to your view).
c) while i can see a case for "wp:own", on the other hand i would counter that it directs the new user to a place where their question/query will get answered (rather than some empty unwatched talk page) - it also allows editors to contact other editors - eg if an AFD comes up, AFD'ers are meant to notify relevant projects, etc. Its a double edged sword like most things around wikipedia.
Pickle 07:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
C/ Isn't Wikipedia wonderful... Always a stalemate. Adding a banner will add a point where a user can ask for help, the importance is however just a clerical tag that ought to for the project's eyes only: I as a random editor do not care about the importance Bob from the Bogies WP think and if Bob thinks such or such article is important (should he feel the need to waste his time not editing but rating articles instead) he should keep his record, not the article. Like I said, a little WP:OWN flag left on the article talk page ;). Could be worst, a WP could have their own little chat in their corner and impose their PoV on an article no one owns. I suppose I'm starting to turn around in circles; I htink you get me point anyhow. Now then, someone's birthday at the office today (wasting time on Wikipedia on work time...) and there is chocolate to be eaten. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've said over at Talk:Totley Tunnel (it bloody schizophrenic talking on 3 talk pages), this is an issue i thought was uncontroversial and had a Wikipedia wide consensus. just goes to show you never know what little thing is a key issue to some users ;) I don't see a consensus forming on how to move forward on this one, nor do i know where might be the right place to direct your (valid) concerns to. so i agree to disagree and hope you've enjoyed your cake (and I've got a dissertation to finish!). Pickle 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Three successive days of cakes at the office, all good. Hopefuly more birthdays this week. Wikipedia never has consensus, it's its flaw, quicker you understand Wikipedia cannot work because it'll never agree with itself the better ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain scarlet (talk • contribs) 06:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Overlooked change

This is odd. I made two recent changes to Westport (Amtrak station), one of them major. Yet when I looked on the list of recent changes they never showed up. Other changes to other stations did, though. What gives? ---- DanTD 01:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Rail transport" selected for Version 0.7

Rail transport has recently been selected for inclusion in the 'Version 0.7' copy of Wikipedia. With this in mind, would it be a good idea to declare some form of collaboration task force for that page? Currently it has several 'clean-up' banners, and is rather a mess in places... I don't think they'd be happy to use it in its present state.

The article is already rated as 'top importance' and 'B-quality' within the TWP project, and it probably should be improved to 'Good Article' status at the very least (if not beyond that).

EdJogg 15:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Something about great minds... I noticed the update this morning and was going to suggest the same thing. So let's all head over there and get started. Slambo (Speak) 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to show willing, I have taken a hatchet to one section. However, the whole article is a bit disjointed. As you all edit it, please consider if the sections are in the right order...
(More discussions on article talk page. Further ideas for improvement in article ToDo list).
EdJogg 23:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Help needed in trade routes

Hi everyone,
I've been working on trade related subjects for the past few weeks now, including the trade route article.
Could someone suggest the names of some major international cargo/freight train routes so this section could be expanded ? I have tried to look into it but have come across only international passenger routes. With the establishment of many Free Trade Areas surely some existing train routes are being used for transportation of cargo ? With regards, Havelock the Dane 10:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Some guess;
*Trans-Siberian Railway (Russia / USSR),
* the several American transcontinental railroads (see Transcontinental railroad
** First Transcontinental Railroad (Union Pacific Railroad and [Central Pacific Railroad]])
** Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and Southern Pacific Railroad
** Southern Pacific Railroad
** Northern Pacific Railway
** Great Northern Railway (U.S.)
** Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad
** San Diego and Arizona Railway
* of course if you take a mdoern persepctive, esp in realtion yto your article the Kansas City Southern Railway with its mexican subsidary Kansas City Southern de México is sometime called the "NAFTA railroad"
* Canada
** Canadian Pacific Railway
** Canadian Northern Railway (now Canadian National Railway)
** Grand Trunk Pacific Railway & National Transcontinental Railway (now Canadian National Railway)
* contrast on the other side of the Mississippi - Railroads connecting New York City and Chicago
* in Austrailia;
** the The Ghan (so that would be the "Central Australian Railway" try AustralAsia Rail Corporation)
** Indian Pacific (Trans-Australian Railway).
* elsewhere how about some historic failed ones such as Cape-Cairo railway, Baghdad Railway and Hejaz railway
Its not really a euopean thing - while pan european trians do go on, there are too many pasanger trains, too many borders still, etc preventing US style transcontinental freight. There is some stuff through the Channel Tunnel but not enough yet.
Hope that gives you some pointers Pickle 00:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling I'd find the answers I needed here; those routes definitely help and I'll be using them to expand the section. Many thanks for taking the time !
Havelock the Dane 06:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Amtrak is "paid to be late"

Amtrak is "paid to be late:" Amtrak rents the tracks from companies like Southern Pacific. If Amtrak can blame Southern Pacific for being late, Amtrak runs "rent free." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.67.9 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source to back up this claim? Slambo (Speak) 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I will say as an Non Amtrak RR Employee, Amtrak has no control over if they are late or not, If it is the railroad fault (not Amtraks fault) yes, they fine the railroads some money (which comes out of the money that amtrak pays to the railroad for use of the track). But if it is Amtraks fault the fines dont happen, and trust me the railroads watch that like a hawk. BeckyAnne(talk) 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


AMTRAK is often late because most of the major rails are owned by freight companies. These companies are in locked into heavy competition with other freight companies. It is more cost effective to let an AMTRAK train and its few passengers sit on the side and wait than it is to let several million dollars in fright sit and wait for a few passengers. It's all about moving the freight. Passengers take the back seat on the railroad now because of the many other forms of transportation available for people and few for heavy overland freight. Many do still have agreements for local commuter rail transport but cross country is no longer a priority. It's all about money, people pay big bucks to have their freight moved now and if one company cannot provide the service, they'll pick someone else. Not Facts, just logic. --Dp67 | QSO 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As an aside... Part of my summer vacation this year was a circle tour on Amtrak from Detroit to Washington DC then to Boston and finally home to Madison, WI via Chicago. The trains from Detroit to Washington, Boston to Albany and Albany to Chicago all arrived late (and even the bus connection from Detroit to Toledo was late) for various reasons; the Acela was on time which I attribute to Amtrak's ownership of the Northeast Corridor and low freight traffic on the line. At every stop we made, every single Amtrak employee that we interacted with did absolutely everything in their power to ensure that our trip was a good one. Even when our luggage didn't get tagged for one of our stops (and an Amtrak customer service agent admitted that this specific problem was caused by an Amtrak employee who wasn't following the proper procedure in helping us make it onto our connection), we were able to retrieve our bags and continue on our journey (with a free upgrade from a Regional to Acela service for our troubles). The other passengers that we spoke to didn't choose to ride Amtrak for its speed, they chose it for the experience of riding it. I heard a story on NPR recently that airlines are now also experiencing frequent delays that can often be up to and beyond the delays that Amtrak experiences. Despite perpetual tardiness on many routes, Amtrak's ridership is improving, and from our experience this summer, I can easily see one reason for it (but being original research, I can't put this into an article like this).
Now it's time to let this issue rest; unless some reliable sources are cited, we can't add these comments into articles. Slambo (Speak) 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe.. You were late, imagine that! Actually I recently took the trip on AMTRAK from Washington's Union Station to Battle Creek, MI. It only took me 24 hours! That's right, an entire day not including the 3 hour layover in Chitown! It only takes me about 9 hours to drive from BC to DC! LOL I did find it odd though that I could have gotten off at Elkhart, IN. and saved about 12 hours! From here I can drive to Elkhart in about 1-1 1/2 hours. We stopped at the Elkhart Station around 8AM and got to Chicago around 1PM I finally got to Battle Creek close to 8PM that night. I didn't know that Elkhart was so close until after I moved here though. Honestly, I'm not complaining though I did enjoy every bit of the journey. I spent 90% of the trip sitting in the glass lounge car watching scenery and yakking with other travelers. I haven't been on the Acela yet, I came in on the Capitol Ltd from DC to Chicago. and took the Wolverine from Chicago to Battle Creek. Typical P42DC, Genesis Phase IV with a train of coaches. In spite of the extended travel time I've not let it keep me from planning another trip via AMTRAK again soon. If I absolutely positively have to be some where fast I'll take the plane! To enjoy the ride I'll take the train! I don't think there is any reason to make an article about delays either. I'm just sharing some of the details of my last cross country venture. --Dp67 | QSO 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.


  • 22 September 2007 - expires 27 September
    • George tosh (PROD by User:HeartofaDog; PROD nominator states: "is this man notable?" Excerpt: "Tosh is notable insofar that he was amongst the first railway engineers in the country to introduce coal-burning [rather than coke] fireboxes, fitted the first steel tyred wheels to British engines….") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
     Done – de-PROD'ed: I think his pioneering use of steel is sufficient notability. I have wikified the page and found a number of interesting webpages which support some of the claims. However, I have not yet incorporated them as proper references (perhaps someone else can do that).EdJogg 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    I was hoping that someone with a little more time than I have today would step up. I'd think that his work with locomotive designs would earn him a high importance rating here (so I've further updated the banner to reflect this). Slambo (Speak) 12:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    I've got to be honest -- I'd never heard of him before!! EdJogg 13:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    ...and therein lies the reason why I spend time doing these notifications. The simple reflex of quite a few "deletionists" is that if they personally have not heard of a person, the article should be deleted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Routebox fixing

There are still two other station articles with routeboxes that I can't fix. Norman (Amtrak station) misdirects people to Union Station (Oklahoma City) as the previous station, when it should be directing them to Oklahoma City (Amtrak station). Also, now that the two Western Avenue (Metra) stations have been specified, Union Station (Chicago)'s routebox for the Milwaukee District/West Line should have Western Avenue (Metra Milwaukee District/North Line) as the previous station. I was trying to change the link to that specific station without changing the name in the routebox. How can I fix these two? ---- DanTD 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Harvey House Railroad Depot & Western America Railroad Museum

I found out from TrainWeb that the Harvey House Railroad Depot & Western America Railroad Museum share the same building(http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/barstow.htm), which doesn't convince me that this is an unstaffed Amtrak staion. Would this fact justify a potential merger? ---- DanTD 01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'unstaffed' distinction has to do with NO Amtrack employees there. Tickets and food at Barstow are from vending machines. -- G.E. Nordell (Belen, NM) 2317 MDT 30 September 2007

Okay, fair enough. But there are still employees at the museum which shares the same building, aren't there? ---- DanTD 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Template help

I am currently having a couple of problems with this template: 

{{rail start}}
{{rail line one to two
|previous=[[Iver railway station|Iver]]
|next1=[[Heathrow Airport|Heathrow]]
|next2=[[Hayes and Harlington railway station|Hayes and Harlington]]
|route1=[[Crossrail]]|route2=Crossrail<br>|col=71D9E2}}
{{end box}}

I seem unable to get one Crossrail in the middle and an stuck with two where I only have one preceding station. The london underground has managed to do this as shown here: 

{{s-start}}
{{s-rail|title=LUL}}
{{s-jnct|system=LUL|line=Piccadilly|previous=Heathrow Terminal 4|previous2=Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3|oneway3=yes|next=Hounslow West|type=Heathrow}}
{{end}}

Many thanks --Lisa666 20:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

a) for reasons bst left to one side for now, we're stuck with using rail line rather than s-rail in the UK ....
b) s-rail operates diffrenty and thus allows the above to happen
c) the "rail line" template you want is "Rail line one to two type 2" (and its equivilant "Rail line two to one type 2")
d) see your talk page re the "issues" about the crossrail route boxes
Pickle 21:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox query

I was wondering, can we add optional National Register of Historic Places date, architect, and architectural style(s) parameters to the stations infobox, it would go a long way toward solving the relatively silly inclusion of two infoboxes on some articles. Thanks for your time.IvoShandor 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed this issue before on previous occasions, and Mackensen has tried to merge the two for Sebring (Amtrak station) once, but it broke apart. I really don't think the inclusion is so silly when active stations are listed on the NRHP. ---- DanTD 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've tried again at Sebring; I think this solution will actually work. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I only wish I knew how your previous attempt to merge them fell apart, so we can prevent it from happening again. ---- DanTD 17:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
An infobox is supposed to make two things happen, introduce uniformity to a type of article and make information easy for a reader to parse. Adding two of them contradicts both of these goals. It decreases uniformity and doesn't help the reader. What is the point of an infobox that appears below the lead, when all info that could be put in it should probably be in the lead to begin with. It just looks bad, which should be enough of a reason, as if Wikipedia doesn't look bad enough already, but since its not, those are my reasons. I have yet to be told of the benefit. The NRHP is a fairly minor designation, its pretty much honorary, and there are over 90,000 places on it, the extra infobox is totally unneeded, especially if a few items can go in the one already there.IvoShandor 20:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If this is the case, how do you feel about the ones at Grand Central Terminal and Fort Worth T&P Station? Those two stations are both active and listed as NRHP sites, and Grand Central Terminal's infobox is strictly NRHP. If uniformity is the goal, then two of them together would be appropriate for articles that fall under both categories. ---- DanTD 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, if an article has an infobox already I just leave it alone. I am probably more likely to use the NRHP one if they don't have a box, but I don't add others or change existing ones, to avoid conflict mostly, and I really, really hate the way two of them look. Either way an infobox isn't completely necessary anyway, a lot of times it can make things more confusing, because they tend to encourage a way of thinking that depends on categorization, which isn't always possible. All relevant information should be provided in text, infoboxes are little more than visual extras and aren't really going to enhance an article to the point it seems to have been claimed on the Dwight station article. Most, if not all, article enhancing that is going on should be through expansion of the page, not through infoboxes. IvoShandor 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't hate the way the two of them look together, and that image you have of the old Dwight Amtrak station is nice. Appearences aside, being forced to choose one or the other tends to diminish the status of a station as a historic landmark, as well as the status of historic stations as active ones. I assume you saw Mackensen's experimnet of blending the two infoboxes as one, but back in in April 2007, Slambo suggested a whole new parameter for historic railroad stations(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2007%2C_2#T.26P_Station_Infoboxes), which would seem fine, but by itself you'd miss a lot of the details that the existing NRHP infoboxes provide. Around a month later, I brought this discussion up on WikiProject New York City Public Transportation(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_7#Template:Infobox_Station). Apparently, Tinlinkin tried nesting one inside the other, and it didn't work. ---- DanTD 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
One other thing, the blank maps are reserved for editors who know how to fill them in. I don't know how to fill them in. ---- DanTD 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of those generic maps, I don't think they look too good either (as you can see aesthetics are something I consider, if things look bad they instantly have far less credibility; I suspect that this partially contributes to the public perception of Wikipedia as unreliable). I think the only way to really integrate this info is to just add additional parameters to the stations infobox (optional of course) that correspond to the NRHP box, keeping the look of the stations box and adding the additional parameters into the existing style. I don't know if the project here thinks its feasible or not. I would say that the NRHP box has some nice details, as well as some that don't add much (the ref number comes to mind immediately and I wish we would get rid of it). I do think that the NRHP infobox, sometimes, overemphasizes what is really a marginal designation that is often times the prelude to nothing, maybe demolition. As a whole other aspects of a building's history are far more interesting and significant to the overall picture of a building than an NRHP designation, which, as I said, is mostly nothing more than a honorary designation. If a station is a National Historic Landmark, I would have differing thoughts (this is slightly more significant). Anyway, these are some of my thoughts (and sorry if I initially came off harsh). IvoShandor 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Thanks for the compliment on the photo btw. I plant to expand Dwight (Amtrak station), as well as Plano (Amtrak station) eventually, I am currently working on Livingston County, Illinois NRHPs after taking a tour via Route 66. This is a big reason why I would like to see this integration sooner rather than later, I think something similar could be done with the bridges infobox as well. That's a different discussion though. But I am all for adding the parameters to the current station and bridges boxes as opposed to just merging the infobox templates into one. IvoShandor 23:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep in mind that Infobox Station is a fairly generic template used within many different transport systems not limited to the United States. Any additions need to be neutral. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
What would be more feasible is adding a "listing date" parameter, or just adding the major ones (those three and a couple others?) and addressing any additional ones that come up as they come up. I would also like to see parameters like "architect" and "architectural style(s)" added too, if this possible, those shouldn't present any particular international problems. IvoShandor 00:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's another article that has two infoboxes; Florida State Road 694. Part of the reason for the merging of two different infoboxes is that there have been duplicate articles of the same stations. One article listing them strictly as a railroad-related article, and the other one as an NRHP-related article. The Sebring (Amtrak station) was one example of this, but there has also been Deerfield Beach (Amtrak station), Union Station (Tampa), Dade City Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Depot, and others. There's still the issue of the West Palm Beach (Tri-Rail station), which is the same place as the Seaboard Coastline Railroad Passenger Station. ---- DanTD 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pioneers of rail transport

There seem to be a lot of people in Category:People in rail transport who should be in Category:Pioneers of rail transport. People like George Stephenson for example. If he's not a pioneer then no one is! Does anyone know why? Budhen 18:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Next!

Is it even possible to create a sort of web ring for Wiki Projects? I was thinking of that as sort of a random article link but only for articles within the project. Much like those Web Rings everyone's familiar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp67 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I realise this is not exactly answering your question, but if you are looking for something to do, the articles Rail transport (aka 'railway' and 'railroad'), Train, and Rail transport operations have all been selected as essential articles for the CD version of WP, and none are currently above 'B' grade... EdJogg 07:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NRHS

Although not an official member of the Trains Project or NRHS, I thought it was high time that Wikipedia had an article about the National Railway Historical Society, so I've just started it. JGHowes talk - 01:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

I was trying out WatchFlickr on Category:Pennsylvania railroads the other night, and it came up with a whole slew of articles that didn't quite seem appropriate for that category. As it turns out, that tool delves recursively into categories, some of which are quite deeply nested. For instance, Category:Amtrak, Category:CSX Transportation, and so on, are all sub-categories of Category:Pennsylvania railroads. This does not seem correct to me. The articles Amtrak, CSX, and so forth should be in the parent category, but the categories should not be subcategories of Pennsylvania railroads. While CSX itself operates in Pennsylvania, articles pertaining to CSX and hence in Category:CSX Transportation do not necessarily have any connection to Pennsylvania. It is my intention, therefore, to remove Amtrak, CSX, etc. as subcategories of Pennsylvania railroads and place them in, say Category:Rail transport in the United States, the most specific category still pertinent to all of the articles in the subcategory. However, as this seemingly excessive method of categorization does seem to have wide currency in Wikipedia, I thought I would solicit advice on this talk page first before going about things. If you feel the categorization is appopriate, please reply here. Choess 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Replying to agree with you. If category B is in category A, all the articles in category B should also belong in category A. However, note that Category:Amtrak is already in Category:Rail transport in the United States. --Tkynerd 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
But Amtrak also operates in Canada... so wouldn't the same apply as with the states? --NE2 13:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by that. Personally, I think Amtrak should only be in the state categories where Amtrak actually owns track, which would exclude all of Canada. But that's just me. Category:Amtrak should not be in any of the state categories, as GE Genesis (to use one example) is not a railroad in any state. --Tkynerd 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about Category:Amtrak being in Category:Rail transport in the United States; the former includes some Canadian stations. --NE2 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, excellent point. I agree with you. --Tkynerd 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Monorails task force

I think it is time to throw in the towel for the monorails task force. No one has expressed consistent interest in my little pet project since its creation 8 months ago. It's time for me to stop taking up wikipedia namespace.--MrFishGo Fish 13:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Another AFD nom

Another editor just nominated 2017 in rail transport for deletion; please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 in rail transport. Slambo (Speak) 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You guy's really must have cast iron patience to put up with the hard head you're debating with now. I don't have patience for people like that at all. If I say what's really on my mind I'll probably be banned. In fact I'm getting annoyed with a few people I've run into on here. Not in Trains Project just on Wikipedia. I had to stop watching/reading the page because I was about to boil over and tell someone where they could go and take their opinions with them! And that's not including the idiot who obviously votes delete on everything even if he's never read a word of the article he's voting on. Seems most of the contributing he's done is on AfD. Not to mention putting himself at the top of the list rather than in chronological order like everyone else. Oh well theres some steam! At least I feel a tiny bit better now! LOL So Good luck!
--Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 03:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What kind of transit is this?

[3] (and subsequent pages) is a 1945 plan for transportation in Detroit. It includes the following:

  • "It calls for modernization of equipment and rearrangement of the local motor bus routes on the city streets coordinated with trunkline operation of trains within the central mall of some sections of the expressways, two modern surface trunk car lines, four electric trolley bus lines and two express bus routes on the expressways."
  • "Modern street cars would travel down the central mall of the Grand River Expressway from Southfield to West Chicago, where they would swing into Grand River and proceed on the street surface into the downtown section."
  • "Where the street cars and electric buses reach the downtown area, they would dip below the surface, freeing the streets for vehicular and pedestrian traffic."
  • "Street cars operating from a terminal at Southfield would furnish rapid transit service to West Chicago and Grand River, and local service from there to a portal at First. The project would include new storage yards and shops in the vicinity of Southfield and Grand River."

Would it be appropriate to do something like:

The freeway would have included a "modern street car" line in the median.

Or would it be original research to call it light rail, even in only the link? I don't think it would qualify as the current definition of rapid transit, since, while that part would be grade-separated, the part on the surface of Grand River Avenue would not be. --NE2 13:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I got it worked out in Interstate 96, but if anyone would like to check that would be great. --NE2 08:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2007,_3&oldid=1248844450"