Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 10

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

Colours again

Minor but still just what i was afraid of. We cannot have the whole network as being grey. We need a different colour for NXEA. I would actually suggest using the 'one' colour scheme. Also, another note is National Express East Anglia is not National Express East Coast. Simply south (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are arguments for and against having separate colours. Personally, I felt we didn't actually need to change the colour we used for 'one'--it was appropriate enough for the NatEx corporate colour scheme, and wouldn't have needed any work to change it. However, given that NXEC and NXEA share the same corporate colour scheme, it is not unreasonable for us to use the same colour for both of them. After all, we didn't have separate colours for Virgin West Coast and Virgin CrossCountry when there were two franchises there, although they had fully integrated their brands in a way that NatEx isn't doing.

We should reach a consensus on what to do about the colours, then make changes if necessary (I don't mind doing it with an AWB run if required). --RFBailey (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

They were sub-brands of the Virgin Trains brand. But i see...

The grey of NXEC seems to be from their website. What i have set for NXEA (Denim) seemed to be the closest match i could find to the NXEA website. Simply south (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they were not "sub-brands": the two were fully integrated to such an extent that only one brand was ever used. That's not quite the same as what NatEx are doing, but isn't far-removed.

Anyway, do you mean this colour █ (#1560BD)? --RFBailey (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Its ts hard to tell things and seems complicated.

Yes.

There seems to be two templates (both were grey before): {{NXEC colour}} and {{NXEA colour}} of which the latter i applied the change to. This can easily be changed again if needed. Simply south (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The background colour on the website is actually█ #305E7F. Is this the one you were trying to approximate? --RFBailey (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is similar although on the website it looks lighter by a tad and bluer by a tad. But then again, we can't be perfectionists! Simply south (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely that colour: I screen-grabbed it to get the colour into GIMP to see exactly what it was, and also checked the source code of the CSS of the webpage to double-check. It's definitely #305E7F (although I agree it looks lighter when it fills up a larger part of the screen--must be a trick on the eyes). So we can be perfectionists ;-) --RFBailey (talk) 05:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the colour in {{NXEA colour}} to #305E7F. I'll update Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Colours list now. --RFBailey (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First Great Western

There is now {{FGW colour}}, If we do this for every TOC it will make it much easier when new services/franchises start/change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark999 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 Feb 2008

Are there any more upcoming changes that would make this worthwhile in the short-term? --RFBailey (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the silence as a "no". However, given the possibility of c2c being rebranded in line with the other NEG franchises, I've created {{C2C colour}} so that a change can be made in one fell swoop, if it becomes necessary. An AWB run is under way to implement it. --RFBailey (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Talyllyn Railway

I'm currently working on expanding this article and providing better in-line refs, with a view to getting it up at least to good article standard. Any assistance, advice or comments would be gratefully received. — Tivedshambo _(t|c) 12:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

After concerted effort by a team of editors to improve the article, we have decided it is now good enough to try for good article status. Editors who have not contributed to the creation of the article can help evaluate it at: Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Transport. Any feedback, either through the formal GA review process or simply comments left on the article talk page are much appreciated. Thanks, Gwernol 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment push

How about a push to clear the assessment backlog? There are less than 300 unassessed articles, so it shouldn't take too long. Once that is done the backlog of unknown importance articles can be tackled. Then we will be in the position that WP:KENT are in - no backlog at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Done 10% of them in the last hour.Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I found that WP:KENT had at least one stub class article that I would rate as start class. Just because they have no unassessed articles, does not mean that they have no backlog of assessments, or that their assessments are still currently valid.Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but that can be probably be said of all Wikiprojets. Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to note something. The less than 250 articles are for totally unasessed but there are over 1000 articles with either no importance or no quality assessment. Also, to Mjroots, not all lines and stations just outside London apply to the London Transport project. Simply south (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply south - I never added any LT projects, I did go through the WP:Trains unassessed list and add UK and Stations to about 30 articles which didn't have them. If it was already tagged as LT then I added UK to it. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Now i've just looked more closely and i see. Simply south (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I started working through the articles listed as unclassified, so I've seen quite a few. At this moment there are 233 articles without UK quality (class=) assessments. The "problem" of the lack of UK importance is due to the UK appearing as a child project of WPTrains in the project template. Adding e.g. {WikiProjectTrains|class=stub|importance=low|UK=yes} only gives a WPTrains importance, not a UK importance rating. To get a UK importance importance the following is needed e.g. {WikiProjectTrains|class=stub|importance=low|UK=yes|UK-importance=low}. I'm sure that if Simply south feels that strongly a bot or script can be used to copy the WPTrains importance across to the UK-importance. I have no wish to do 1000 assessments by hand; I've done it twice before and that was enough.Pyrotec (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Only 190 to go now.Pyrotec (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Should i run the bot (one which updates the stats i.e. WP1.0 Bot, not one which would copy TWP assessment)? And i got it wrong, it is over 3000. Simply south (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

List it at WP:BOTREQ. There are already similar requests from other WikiProjects (e.g. [2]). --RFBailey (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to importance rating, when mentioning about the 3000+. I am not sure how a bot could tackle that i.e. rate them top, high, medium or low. Simply south (talk)

So was I; see my comment above 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC). Set the "UK-importance" to the same as the WPT "importance". That will clear the UK unassessed ratings.Pyrotec (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Running the WP1.0 Bot will not add a field to the WPT assessment template on railway article talkpages. A bot or automated script is required that will look at every talkpage that has a valid {WikiProjectTrains|importance=X} assessment, where X is a valid importance; and if there is no valid UK-importance=Y assessment, where Y is a valid importance, add UK-importance=X. Now the UK importance may be different (possibly higher) than the WPTrains importance; but at least it will clear the 3000+ backlog.23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I didn't realise that there was a "UK importance" grading! I'm wondering if this is really necessary though. We invented railways as a major transport system. It has also become apparent that there are many artic;les not tagged with |UK=yes when they should be! Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Assessment, one editor (User:Mjroots) suggested that, firstly, the "unassessed article by Quality" count be reduced to zero - that is certainly possible, it is now just below 190. A second editor (User:Simply south) "seconded" the second target that the "none articles by importance" count be reduced to zero - that target needs some automation, doing some 3778 articles by hand is a non-starter; and it will not provide a UK importance assessment in those cases where there are no WP:Trains importance assessments.

I don't think it is a good idea to set targets and then move the goal posts. By all means follow your suggestions of getting all the articles assessed (as per WP:KENT) and WP Somerset; but lets not start an article tagging hunt until we have completed, or agreed priorities of existing targets.

PS the quality statistics for both WP:Kent and WP Somerset have no NONE column (they are all TOP, HIGH, MID, LOW); whereas UK trains has 4841 articles, 3778 of which fall in the NONE column - that is the importance grading.Pyrotec (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the suggestion that the WPTrains-importance be robot-copied to the UK-importance: as has been pointed out earlier, UK importance might be higher than international importance. Surely "unassessed" is better than "assessed incorrectly"? --Dr Greg (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what does 3778 out of 4841 articles unassessed (for quality) imply?Pyrotec (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to say that WP 1.0 Bot would do the importance, it just updates the statistics mainly. I think basically a bot can be applied to the first one (as seen in WP:UKgeo and WP:UKROADS, ignoring the fact that the second example went slightly wrong). I still don't really see how a bot can tackle the importance or how we can get through it other than keep trying. Simply south (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the list of 190 unassessed articles, most seem to be "railway stations" that can probably be given an inital assessment of "Low". In fact you can apply this principle to all of the outstanding articles. Most of the articles that are considered important are probably already identified as such (i.e. Top or High), which means that the remainder are going to be "medium" or "low". I would venture to suggest that a lot of the "medium" articles have also been properlt tagged. Therefore, by the process of elimination, the remainder (or 99% thereof) are highly likely to be classed as "low". So of the "bot" tags all the unassessed articles as "low", 99% of the work has been done. It would not take long for an experienced UK editor to reasign articles that should have a higher rating. Thats my proposed solution. Olana North (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is true that "it would not take long for an experienced UK editor" to decide which articles deserve an importance higher than "low", then do that first, then get a bot to mark all the still-unassessed articles "low". --Dr Greg (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm coming a little late to this discussion but I need to chime in here... I've been working through the TWP unassessed category for quite some time and I'm always glad to have some help going through the articles there. On the question of the need for a separate UK-importance parameter, there are some articles that will be of a different importance here than they will be to the general TWP. For example, the article on the Jubilee line is currently listed as High-importance within the London Transport wikiproject, but on a worldwide scale, this would likely be listed as Mid- or even Low-importance. Slambo (Speak) 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

just when the list is cleared, someone creates another article! ]:-) Mjroots (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe... <shifts eyes/> Simply south (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I cleared over 300 yesterday, someone else can done the 3770-ish importance assessments.Pyrotec (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disused line in South Yorkshire

When I was a child I lived in the village of Dodworth in Barnsley. In the summer my family would go walking up by these fields, picking blackberries and go on to this little creek. To get there we'd have to cross this disused railway line. All the tracks had been torn up years before, and people would walk up and down it, and teens would ride their bikes and motorbikes. I think it started somewhere near Penistone, though I may be wrong, and it went at least as far as the reservoir at Worsborough Common. Does anyone at this Project know what the line was? I've tried looking at List of closed railway lines in Great Britain but can't identify it. Thanks, -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though this might have been the freight-only branch mentioned in the article on the Penistone Line, "from West Silkstone Junction, a few miles further, via Worsborough to Wombwell and the Wath marshalling yard". Warofdreams talk 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's probably it. Thank you! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Move

I have put up Edinburgh tram network for WP:RM but have listed possible alternaive names as it is had to determine which is the official name. Simply south (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment - Why are there no 'A' class articles?

There are some 36 articles rated as GA, yet none at Class "A". Perhaps we could select a couple and get them up to "A" ... as a start from getting them to "FA". Olana North (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

London Underground although this has gone through numerous changes and probably needs reassessment. Simply south (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Further to this, i have just done a small review on some things that could be improved\changed. See Talk:London Underground. Simply south (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Initialisms

I've just found List of acronyms and initialisms. Seems to me that we need to get all the railway companies initialisms listed if they aren't already done. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Having taking butchers, I'll let you do the honours. I was going to add GWR to the list, but stopped when I saw that it would be amongst "GWAT" Great Western Archery Team and "GWOT" Global War on Terrorism. I think GWR deserves better ... perhaps we could set up a railways version. Having said that, it had better not go the way of the one to do with railway jargon. Olana North (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Me!? I'm sure that if everyone added their favourite company it wouldn't take long. At least the initialisms can be linked to the article about the company, so the railway jargon issue won't arise. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Station lists by TOC

I just reverted an edit to National Express East Anglia [3] which had included an exhaustive list of stations served by that franchise. I think this is excessive detail for a TOC article. However, it occurred to me that perhaps there is scope for "List of stations served by X (TOC)" articles, or maybe categories. Any thoughts? --RFBailey (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but it'll mean a lot more work when a franchise changes. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 00:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true, although simply doing a category change could be achieved by an AWB run, and renaming a list is just a page move. What's probably more tricky is monitoring service changes: for instance, Haywards Heath is currently served by CrossCountry, but won't after a timetable change later this year. --RFBailey (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As there are lots of editors who put a great deal of editing time into changing the station link boxes when services change, I think that most category changes would be done quite quickly. I had toyed with the idea of using categories to produce lists of stations served by historic companies, e.g. Former Great Western Railway stations; Former Caledonian Railway stations, etc, and so I would happily support a hierarchy of categories showing Stations served by... Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I am the troublemaker that placed the list that user:RFBailey talks about I join in. I must admit that I did not put much work in getting this list: it is halfway on this page under a pull down menu: [4]. I did not verify this with another source, although I would assume that this particular website cannot afford to make mistakes, and they would have communicated with the rail company to get the proper list. (The company sells ferry-train combination tickets and lets customers know all the stations they can travel to with their ticket.) Such a list may be very useful for travellers, however, it would be even more useful if it were in combination with a map. --VanBurenen (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of things being said in the above discussion that need to be considered in line with official policy, in particular WP:NOT. (1) WP:NOT#LINK advises against the creation pages of internal links. (2) WP:NOT#MIRROR advises against the "mirroring" of data on other websites. (3) WP:NOT#TRAVEL advises against articles that are travel guides. In other words, some of what is being said constitutes the creation of articles (in part or in whole) of things for which Wikipedia was not designed to do. I raise this in order to avoid anyone doing a lot of work on this only to have it deleted for it contravening WP policy and guidance. Olana North (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) On the other hand, look at something like List of West Midlands railway stations, which has recently become a featured list. WP:NOT#LINK does not apply to lists. If done properly, rather than just a long table, a list can be quite informative. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 10:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that creating categories for stations by TOC would be a reasonable thing to do here, but to stop things getting out of hand I suggest that we only do this for current TOCs (e.g. not have categories for GNER, Central Trains, Wales & West, etc.). The West Midlands list looks very good and deserves its Featured List status, but I think there's less commonality between stations served by a given TOC that would allow articles like that to be written. Also, the category system should avoid any WP:NOT concerns. --RFBailey (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just come across List of railway stations managed by Southern: its creator must have got bored with it quite quickly, since it only gets as far as C. If we go for the category idea, presumably this would then be able to be deleted. --RFBailey (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In my view the page should be put up for deletion now, as it clearly contravenes WP:NOT#LINK and has almost zero information content (whereas an encyclopedia should aim for 100% information content. If the intention is to use categories to create the same thing, then I suppose it is an improvement of sorts. Olana North (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever does the stations managed First Capital Connect, this would need to be split up into Thameslink and Great Northern. Maybe this should also apply to South West Trains (Island Line being separate). Simply south (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would FCC need to be split like that? I can't see any particular reason to do that. --RFBailey (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Two different franchises so showing that not all stations are managed on the same routes. Simply south (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

FCC only have one franchise: the two parts were combined when the franchise was awarded. --RFBailey (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I decided to be bold and start work on this. Many of the categories are now created, and I've started populating them with AWB. See Category:UK railway stations by train operating company. --RFBailey (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: all the categories are now created. (I have deliberately not created them for sub-brands!) So far, the categories for Arriva Trains Wales, c2c, Chiltern Railways, Grand Central, Hull Trains and Merseyrail have been populated. --RFBailey (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

....as has East Midlands Trains. --RFBailey (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

CrossCountry, First Capital Connect and Gatwick Express have now been done. --RFBailey (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I just do not see the point of this lists / categories? As for the maintenance of these when the franchises change (or timetables change removing some stations stops / or adding additional stops), the overhead does not bear thinking of. "Managed by" could be done, driven by the info box. --Stewart^(talk) 18:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to know that one's hard work is appreciated(!). When franchises change, the category can simply be renamed and changes made by machine. As for service patterns changing, that doesn't happen that often, and as someone observed above, there are enough people that go round fixing things like that. --RFBailey (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reawaken discussion

Now that I'm less busy off-wiki (and that my computer isn't broken.....), I've been able to finish off the category-filling: right now I'm working on South West Trains, and that should be sorted soon.

Related to the discussion we had above, a few days ago I put a WP:PROD notice on List of railway stations managed by Southern; however, it was removed and I'll put it up on AfD. --RFBailey (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The nomination is complete: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of railway stations managed by Southern. Now back to the AWB run.... --RFBailey (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Boiler Pressures

In the UK, we use psi, whilst in Europe kg/cm² is used. How do you convert from one to the other? Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

pressure --Jotel (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So which {{convert}} template would I use? Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is one. Do it by hand: psi/14 = kg/cm² = at, that's accurate enough.--Jotel (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you ask for one at the {{convert}} talk page. The template already supports psi, atm, bar, Pascals, etc, so I'm sure they'd be amenable to adding another if it's in common usage. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, have asked there. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Try this website [5]. The conversion factor is psi/14.223343334285 = kg/cm², but I'm a pedant. ;-) Olana North (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the proposed conversion template at WT:MOSNUM, comments appreciated there please. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed: semg.org.uk --> semgonline.com

Following a recent edit to LB&SCR E2 class, where the link to the Southern E-group pages was deleted as 'expired', I checked out the usage of the SEMG site at WP. I vaguely remember seeing other pages changed in the past, but I guessed that other pages still required changing. I was right! Look at this list and you will see that there are 145 links that are yet to be modified! (Only 30 links have been changed previously.)

This would seem to be a job for a bot! (The site structure would appear to be the same, just the root URL being different.)

Any takers? (It's not something I can do, and we run the risk of losing excellent links from articles.)

EdJogg (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be easy enough with AWB. I'm not doing anything for a while... — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done - except for talk pages which I've left unchanged. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Didn't think it would be too hard for someone who knew how. (I've never used AWB.) -- EdJogg (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Corris Railway

After a couple of months of work, we've got Talyllyn Railway to Good Article status, and its now a featured article candidate too. I've started working on Corris Railway, a natural companion to the Talyllyn Railway. My hope is to get it to Good Article status in the next couple of months. Anyone who would care to join in is most welcome. Best, Gwernol 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Untagged articles

How do we tackle the problem of untagged articles? I found London and Greenwich Railway which wasn't tagged. There must be others out there! Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say just keep going. There are bound to be others out there untagged. Simply south (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There will 'always' be untagged and uncategorised articles, at least, all the while that new editors are creating pages. So I guess it's down to all project members just to keep looking... EdJogg (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One solution, if anyone has the necessary skills, would be for someone to create a bot that could deep scan all categories in Category:Category-Class rail transport articles, and ensure that any articles in those categories are themselves tagged. As this bot could be used for other projects as well, it could be worth suggesting at WP:BOTREQ — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know i keep referring to this but as long as this doesn't happen. Simply south (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point - probably better if it produced a list, which could be checked manually. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think another thing to consider is education - ensuring editors, particularly relative newbies, are aware of projects, and asking anyone who creates a rail-based article to add {{TWP}} to the talk page. I must admit, it's something I haven't done till recently. At a quick glance, a lot of "my" articles are still untagged, so I'll have a blitz on everything using AWB tonight. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just tagged about fifty articles, and that's just the ones in my watchlist! Thanks go to Slambo, who seems to be following up and adding the required parameters. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through them. Yesterday I finally got through the main unassessed category (thanks to everyone who is helping out here!!!), so it's easier to jump on newly tagged pages now. Slambo (Speak) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not forgetting the unassessed UK-importances too. Am working my way through those but assistance always welcome. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just done the assessment bot so now we know how much left. Simply south (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish TOCs template

A user has created {{Train operators in Scotland}} (under a different name, before I moved it) earlier today. This appears to be a recreation of {{Current Scottish TOCs}}, which was deleted back in February (see the TfD discussion). It would appear this falls under WP:CSD#G4, so rather than nominate it straight away I thought I'd mention it here first. Any thoughts on if we should just get rid of it straight away? (It's not as if the TfD was at all close.) --RFBailey (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the deleted template - it seems to be identical, so G4 applies. Let me know if you want it deleting. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should give its creator, User:Dundedia, a chance to explain themselves first? --RFBailey (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absense of any input from Dundedia, despite having been in a position to see your message, I've deleted the template and removed it from relevant articles. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 05:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I want to make a fuss, but don't you think that between 10pm and 7am they may have been asleep? --RFBailey (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You left the message at 20:56 UTC. He/she was still editing until 21:24 UTC, so they would have seen your message. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think they would've had a valid argument for keeping the template anyway...... --RFBailey (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/InterCity 250 task force

Is this really a topic in need of a "task force"? Currently it only has one member, User:Britishrailclass43, so probably not. Any thoughts? --RFBailey (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Adambro (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe not. I just would like the Intercity 250 to be brought to the public eye Britishrailclass43 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Adambro to delete the articles as seen as I created them I think I should have the final word: They should be deleted as they serve (d) no purpose. Thanks all! Britishrailclass43 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Stephenson and Company

The article needs a slight rewrite to show the first locomotive built by the company (Lancashire Witch) in its correct place. Anyone know if she was built before of after Stephenson's Experiment? I'm talking about the locos built by the company, not those built by Robert Stephenson on his own. I need to get this right as it could affect the DYK nom of Bolton and Leigh Railway. There seem to be two early locomotives with the name Experiment, the other was designed and built by Richard Roberts. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fifteen Guinea Special

I was doing some major updating to BR standard class 7 70013 Oliver Cromwell when I took note that there was no article for the Fifteen Guinea Special - the last steam-hauled passenger train run by BR. I have consequently created an article for this train (it is not convention for an article for a single railtour but I'm confident this is a major exception). Anyway, this is the first time that I have created an article and since I was born just under 20 years after the railtour in 1968 I'll accept that I could have made a few mistakes in the article. I would certainly appreciate it if someone could have a quick read of the article and make edits to it (especially since most of what I have is from a couple of article I read and I'm sure some people will know of some more encyclopedic articles to work from).Grizzlyqi (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea for an article. Just one point, to put my pedantry hat on: the special wasn't the last steam train run by British Rail - that honour goes to a Santa Special on the Vale of Rheidol Railway in 1986. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 14:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I suppose adding in "standard gauge" would be useful but that just overcomplicated an already complex record.Grizzlyqi (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Scarborough North Bay Railway

For some time now, this article has been changed by anonymous users, to remove reference to the Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway, which had been quoted in reliable sources last year as having taken over the line. I've just been contacted by someone claiming to be the webmaster of SNBR website (and I have no reason to think he isn't), who states that the information is incorrect. Unfortunatelythere seems to be no way to prove this. Whilst Wikipedia values verifiability, not truth, it is better to get our facts right. Can anyone suggest how we should proceed with this please? — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the NBR webmaster, and just want to add to this. I'm in contact with the director and those at Cleethorpes at present and have been for some time now. The best reference is our official website at http://www.nbr.org.uk/aboutus.html Unfornunately at the time, whilst it is correct that there is an informal association with the CCLR, the press made the mistake of saying it was actually run and operated by the CCLR, where in fact the NBR Company Ltd has run it since takeover. Peterbrynt (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then can you explain this page from the Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway website which clearly stated "We now have a ten year lease from April 2007 to run trains at Scarborough"? — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 16:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was an incorrect presumption from the webmaster of the CCLR at the time, who did not know the situation properly, hence the wrong links to the ownership Peterbrynt (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry that truth and reality has got in the way of second hand fact and that it is me, as the owner of the railway, putting things right for the people relying on Wiki as a reference source. 86.144.4.132 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC) David Humphreys

I'm sure that everyone has been acting in good faith here, but both Peterbrynt and 86.144.4.132 need to be aware of WP:COI issues that may arise. Any issues can always be discussed on the talk page of the article first. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User 86.144.4.132, who identifies himself as David Humphreys and the 'owner of the railway', appears to be very new to Wikipedia and to have edited no other articles other than the SNBR article. Whilst we welcome his contributions, there is certainly a danger in the area of WP:COI, but even more so in the area of WP:AGF. It is transparently clear that editors have been working in good faith, using clearly referenced and apparently reliable sources. It now appears likely that there were identical errors in a leading railway publication, and on the website of the CCLR. This is unfortunate, but 86.144.4.132 must realise that we can only operate on the basis of these verifiable facts. Where the 'facts' turn out to be errors, corrections can be made - that is the beauty of an evolving on-line work such as this project. Rather than employing sarcasm here, the 'owner of the railway' could help by pointing us to such verifiable facts as a statement on his own website about ownership, or a correction in any part of the published railway press. These sources could then be cited by impartial editors without any risk of infringing WP:COI. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the responses and the link to WP COI. I have added a reference to the WIKI page, to our website, about the ownership and from my part, as webmaster, that's all I can do to avoid any furthur confusion. Peterbrynt (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NXEC Lincoln service

An anonymous user has been modifying the previous/next station boxes vis-à-vis the from-2010 National Express East Coast service to Lincoln Central. Now, first let it be said that I'm not a fan of including such "future services" in these boxes in any case (there's a hint of WP:CRYSTAL about them, to a varying extent depending on the service in question); however, I know there are people who disagree with me on this. In this case, this user's edits suggest that NXEC plan to serve Lincoln by diverting a train there between Doncaster/Retford and Newark. Does anyone have a source for this? If we can't, then perhaps the box should go. --RFBailey (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything which suggests this routing but this highlights one of the major issues with "future services", the details aren't set in stone. I'd suggest we should avoid future service boxes like these and just mention them in the article text as appropriate. Of course as we get closer to the start date then there will be a point at which the details will clearer and so there is perhaps going to be a point at which it does become appropriate to include them. Certainly I think this should be months rather than years before the start date. Adambro (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. In the case of Wrexham & Shropshire, for instance, where services start in a few weeks and the timetable has been published already, then there is no problem in including it. Where there are two years or more for plans to change, change again, change back again, get cancelled, get reinstated, get modified, etc. etc., it's probably more trouble than it's worth. --RFBailey (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the Lincoln service from boxes on Lincoln, Retford, Newark and Gratham station articles. There may be others that I missed! --RFBailey (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disused railway stations (Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway)

Given my earlier fairly successful attempts at creating an article from scratch (see above) I decided to have a go at a project I had been thinking about for some time - replacing the disused railway station stubs for the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway with a full article for the line along the lines of Disused railway stations (Bristol to Exeter Line). Hence I have written Disused railway stations (Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway) and I would greatly appreciate any improvements to the article from more experienced users. I haven't deleted any of the stubs yet or constructed any links to the new article yet (it would be particularly useful if someone could tell me how to edit the route map to direct the links to the correct section of the new article). Also, all of the information in the stubs and that which I have gathered in the article come from one book at the moment so any additional source and material would certainly be useful. Thanks for help Grizzlyqi (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As the diagram is a template used in two different articles you will not be able to use internal links (the heading name prefixed by a #, e.g.[[#Like this]] would link to a section heading ===Like this===). I would therefore suggest that the easiest soloution would be to replace all the original articles with redirect links aimed at the correct sections, e.g. #REDIRECT [[That article#Like this|Like this]]. That way, whether you click on the diagram in the line article or the disused stations article, it will take you to the section in the latter. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are Quail Maps WP:LINKSPAM ?

Over the last two days I have reverted the deletion by User:81.110.106.169 of what I consider to be a valid reference from the Hastings Line article. This consists of the following text:

The map has been produced using data from Trackmaps<ref>[http://www.trackmaps.co.uk/diagrams.htm QUAIL Railway Track Diagrams by Trackmaps]</ref>.

User:81.110.106.169 claims that this is WP:LINKSPAM as the Trackmaps (Quail map) company "... exist for little purpose other than to sell their books". Does any other editor have a view on this? Olana North (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No all publishers exist to sell their books. The reference should be there. We already have one citiation template in place for Quail maps - {{Quail-1}} - for the Scottish publication, and I would suggest that the remaining are equally valid and should be added and widely used. --Stewart^(talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to use the {{cite book}} template to cite a book as a source. I've posted this on the talk page of the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a citation template for Quail Vol 5; put the route map into a template using Quail and Jowett as sources; and added Quail & Jowett to the source list on Template and Article. The original comment is now surplus to requirements. --Stewart^(talk) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Britishrailclass91

Just a quick heads up about this user who I'd invite everyone to keep an eye on. He seems to be on a mission to change every image on UK railway articles, for better or for worse. Whilst I'd accept that some changes have been positive improvements, some have just been a little bit unnecessary and some have been very questionable. Adambro (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to my watch list. Olana North (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been through some of User:Britishrailclass91 picture contributions and reverted several for a number of reasons (1) Their quality being poorer than the picture they replaced, (2) The new picture is simply not better than the existing picture, and in some cases is less relevant to the article. I noticed that other editors had reverted this editors pictures for similar reasons. Olana North (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User 81.110.106.169 edits re Crossrail

This anon user (81.110.106.169 (talk · contribs)) has removed the Crossrail box from a huge number of articles, and been on a veritable edit-summary-free edit-fest today. Surely such actions should have been discussed first?

EdJogg (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL not withstanding, there's been a firm consensus against including such far-off information in the route boxes for a long time. Shouldn't have to dig far in the archives for it. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Example: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 2#Crossrail boxes. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For a "new" editor that only made their first edit on 2nd March 2008, made three other edits between then and 11th April, and has since made a large number of edits in the last week, your knowledge of the archives and what is consensus is miraculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olana North (talk • contribs)

Well that's what you get when you make dumb assumptions about your fellow editors. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd point out that there is no way to know a IP-based editor's edit history. The user may have made other edits when on an internet connection with a different IP. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I have placed a standard warning on this users talk page about not leaving edit summaries. Olana North (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Crossrail is not "far off" as it is now fully funded and ground works have been going on for some time now. You might as well argue that other lines / services not opening until 2010 and later shouldn't be listed. I see no supporting evidence here that there is a consensus to remove useful information boxes that have been in situ for quite some time and am reverting their deletion. --AlisonW (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the cited archived discussion isn't necessarily relevant any more, as it took place over a year ago, before funding was confirmed. However, as the projected opening date is currently (as far as I can tell) 2017, that counts as "far off" in my book. Furthermore, while the route in the Central London tunnel seems to have been fixed, the exact calling patterns in more outlying areas are likely to be subject to change. For this reason, I find "future services" boxes to be problematic in general (such as here, for instance, although that's on a rather different scale, or here, which is from way before services were confirmed). --RFBailey (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As the Crossrail article is about the route rather than the service pattern I'm not sure that is an actual issue here, especially as there have been enough discussions in the past that service patterns are not what we want to cover on WP anyway as they regularly change. --AlisonW (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't want to include the precise calling patterns (perhaps I used the wrong choice of phrase there); however, things like whether Crossrail services will call at Maryland seem to be up in the air. Having a box saying things like "Mondays to Saturdays only", "Peak periods only", or "Only certain trains" definitely should be avoided. If a station is not served by Crossrail, then it shouldn't have a box.

Regardless of that, I still think that 2017 is "far off"! --RFBailey (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed split into 3 articles of Reading to Plymouth Line

There has been a lengthy period of discussion over the proposal to change the Reading to Plymouth Line. The current proposal is to split the article into 3 and merge the sections about Taunton to Exeter with the article Bristol to Taunton Line to form the Bristol to Exeter Line. Given that the split will effect the route articles for a very large portion of the SW of England I am flagging up the discussion here for any interested project members to add their views to. Proposal.Grizzlyqi (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Charlton station

Currently there is a discussion over whether Charlton station in London is the primary usage\more notable over other railway stations named Charlton. Please can there be a wider discussion on this? Also involves Charlton railway station (disambiguation). Simply south (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

List of UK railfan jargon

the List of UK railfan jargon article has been prod-ed. I'd say that if the article is going to be deleted, it should be discussed first. Personally, I'm in favour of retaining it, after all the hard work put in by various editors to get verifiable references for the entries on the list. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, altough lots of hard work has been put into it, it's still basically a load of trivia (having references doesn't alter that), and what are essentially dictionary definitions, so many editors will argue that it violates WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide.. Now, I'm going to stay neutral on this topic, but we have to remember that we're supposed to be writing a general encyclopaedia, not a rail enthusiasts' site, and we have to decide whether this article really belongs here. --RFBailey (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod tag because the two previous AFD discussions on it resulted (one as no consensus, one as keep) in the article remaining. Slambo (Speak) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to RFBailey, there are times when technical/jargon terms need explanation to the layman, which is why the article needs to exist. Would you know what a wallower is? Or the difference between overdrift and underdrift? Do you think that a fantail is a type of pigeon? Or do you need an explanation?

Article has been AfD'd for the third time. US article also being AfD'd. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but as I've been asked a direct question, I'll respond. There's a difference between describing technical terms, which is what the mill machinery article is trying to do, and listing slang or nicknames, such as "Egg Timer", "Flying Banana", or "Wessie". --RFBailey (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Maybe this is an opportunity to expand the scope/coverage of the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could the lead of this article\list be reworded? I would like to point out that not all people interested in railways are likely to use this. Simply south (talk)

See the proposal at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Resetting the indent. Oops, I have just re-worded the initial paragraph as I was unaware you were working on it too Mjroots. ColourSarge (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, The advice is to be bold! I sorted out a space between a couple of words, but the new intro is fine. There's still scope for expansion once the AfD is passed. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox 05/06 statisitics

Dreary as it was, I have gone through the spreadsheet, and updated the stats for all stations listed under the region Wales. They all have the 05/06 statistics, and 04/05 where applicable. So mark these as done.

Is anyone working of any other regions? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just embarked on doing this for the line out of London Euston, starting with the Watford DC line stations. I haven't checked whether any of the further reaches of the line are already done, but I'll try to stick to the mainline (plus the Watford - St Albans Abbey and Bletchley - Bedford branches)for the time being, probably as far as Rugby (and if I am having a good day, maybe Stafford!) ColourSarge (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

London Euston to Stafford complete, including Watford DC line, Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey, Bletchley to Bedford, Northampton Loop and both Trent Valley Line and Birmingham Loop. I've added 0405 and 0506 info where necessary so that each infobox contains at least these two years to give a comparitive measure for usage. Time for a brew I think! ColourSarge (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD notification for Track access controller

The article Track access controller has been nominated for deletion based on notability and verifiability standards. Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Category Railway stations managed by Southern

There's an AfD for List of railway stations managed by Southern (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of railway stations managed by Southern), and consensus seemed to be tending towards the thought that this would be better as a category. So I went ahead and created the category, to which I've added all of the items on the list. Someone just mentioned on my talk page that this should be discussed here, so here I am. Frankly, it's not something I feel all that strongly about, I was just doing this as a random cleanup task. Klausness (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need both Category:Railway stations served by Southern and Category:Railway stations managed by Southern? — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There's obviously going to be a considerable overlap between the two, especially for a company like Southern (who manage nearly all the stations they serve, and most aren't served by anybody else). At the other extreme is CrossCountry, who don't manage any, and oddities like the stations that only they serve but which are managed by somebody else (e.g. Water Orton, Hinckley, etc.). Personally, I think that "served by" is potentially more useful to readers than "managed by", even if it is more likely to fluctuate and more trouble to maintain. --RFBailey (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For these oddities, should a category be created to show these stations? Simply south (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We could have a category for that (it's some sort of an identifying characteristic, I suppose....), but what do you suggest we call it? --RFBailey (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations not served by operator? I'm not sure. Simply south (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't "manager" fit better than "operator"? --RFBailey (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask a simple question. Just who is the target audience for this kind on entry in the "encylopedia"? The list of stations "served" by a TOC is of interest to a wider audience that those that is "manages". If someone is going to create another list/category can we first establish who is going to be interested in it beforehand. The list of stations "managed" by a TOC would appear to have a very, very narrow audience. Olana North (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my original thinking, even if I didn't explicitly state it here: "served by" is far more likely to be of interest to the public at large, rather than "managed by" which few beyond enthusiasts are likely to care about. --RFBailey (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the Managed by category be a sub category of Served by? That is to say, isn't the list of stations managed by Southern a strict subset of the stations it serves? JonoP (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In Southern's case, yes it is a strict subset; however, as alluded to above, in some cases (East Midlands Trains, for example) companies manage stations they don't serve. --RFBailey (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I shall leave this debate alone from now on. I do not know enough about creating categories/sub-categories to be able to comment. Olana North (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dudesleeper

I have raised an item at the Village Pump over a reverted edit that this editor made to London Underground, see here [6] Olana North (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Preserve our locos!

A new wikipedian User:Mallard4468a4 created their first few articles today, only to have all four of them promptly slapped for speedy deletion, one of them actually deleted, by an admin who seems to have a long track record of extremely rapid deletions of anything newly created that isn't perfect from the outset. In his own words, "Well over 90% of new articles, especially those on topics in the Anglophone world, are going to end up deleted."

There's some discussion about it over here User talk:Mallard4468a4

The basis for this was WP:CSD#A1 "No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." This seems to be based on an American not recognising what GWR stood for, or that it was a steam locomotive. Admittedly the articles were far too brief (probably because a new editor was still working on them), but that's a need for improvement, not deleting the things without discussion or even time for discussion (in about 3 minutes flat, as I read the logs).

Discussion on the admin's talk page has shifted to whether articles on "individual locomotives are not notable,". Cornwall!?! There's a thread about this over at Talk:LMS 5MT Black 5 44806#Notability_of_preserved_steam_locomotives, in regards to whether being a preserved survivor, or a working preserved survivor, is in itself adequate notability.

I should back away from this, because I've had too many bad experiences with this admin already and have been accused of uncivility for them. Not if it means sacrificing justifiable articles though. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Have to say, this has really got my goat. The page on Maindy Hall was tagged for deletion after four minutes. When I wrote my first Wikipedia article, Penmanshiel Tunnel, it took me several hours to complete a first draft that I was happy with as I researched the article online while writing it. I believe many wikipedians do the same, particularly those creating an article for the first time - after all that is the beauty of Wikipedia - you can do a bit of work on an article, go and do your shopping, make a cup of tea and then come back to it and work on it a little more.

I'm sticking this article on my watchlist to keep an eye out for anything else untoward which may happen. If I was a newcomer, and this happened to me, to be totally honest, I would have walked away from Wikipedia for good, branding it a clique for geeks. I'm glad it didn't happen to me, as I value wikipedia and the information it contains - grrr! ColourSarge (talk)

If anyone spots articles like these being deleted when they're clearly being worked on, let me know and they'll promptly be undeleted. It's one thing sending them to AFD, where some might not survive (I'd find it hard to make a case for every preserved loco) but speedy deletion's clearly inappropriate. — iridescent 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Windmill powered railway

Can anyone shed any further light on a railway powered by a windmill? Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick Google suggests that the windmill was used to power a slate-cutting machine (useful pdf file here). There's also a Geograph image of a windmill at the same place. Sounds interesting, and if further refs can be found, should be added to funicular railway too.

EdJogg (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of an html link. This ancient pooter can't handle PDF docs, it just freezes. The photo you linked to is the other one on geograph. I though the one I used was better because of the colours. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is "MANX MINES ROCKS AND MINERALS - 4: Manx Quarries", and its on a Manx government website, but it won't let me break down the URL. (I guess you could try googling and seeing if it'll give you an HTML version...) No qualms about the photos, just thought I'd see what was at Geograph! EdJogg (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of such a thing - but the Spurn Head lighthouse keepers had a platelayer's trolley with a sail.

(Drunken students may once have tried to re-enact it...) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of individual STEAM locomotives

OK, as the subject has come up, maybe it is time that the subject was debated, and some guidelines set down about indiviual steam locomotive articles. Before you diesel and electric and multiple unit fans start jumping up and down, let's get a consensus on the steam locomotives first, then we can address those issues.

Proposals:-

All steam locomotives built before 1860 shall be notable enough to have their own article.
Steam locomotives built after 1860 may be sufficiently notable to have an article.
All steam locomotive classes comprising twenty or more locomotives shall be notable as a class. Individual locomotives may be sufficiently notable to have an article.
Steam locomotive classes comprising of nineteen or fewer locomotives may be sufficiently notable to have an article.
All Ex British Railways locomotives rescued from Barry Scrapyard shall be notable in their own right.
All other preserved main line locomotives shall be notable enough to have their own article.
Industrial locomotives may be sufficiently notable to have their own article.

Note, the use of may be does not mean that all locomotives in this category will be sufficienly notable to have an article. Each will have to be assessed on their individual merits.

OK, I've provided the pigeons, send in the cats! Mjroots (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd add: All individual locos preserved in the NRM automatically warrant their own article, as they're a de facto "type specimen" for their class. — iridescent 22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

already covered in #6 :-)) Mjroots (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What's a "preserved" loco? The L&HR ran for several years with all the hard work being done by a pair of "common as muck" Austerity saddle tanks (certainly notable), and there are (sad to sad) any number of "preserved" locos in condition as bad as Woodham's and unlikely to get any better. Some consensus on "preserved" state might be handy. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Andy, your saddle tanks are covered by #7. #5 doesn't necessarily mean the locomotive has to have been restored, thus would include the "Barry Ten". Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For #1/#2 why 1860? How many locos pre-1900 have been preserved? Almost any steam loco over 100 years old is likely to have amassed enough history to make it notable in some way. However, I suspect we must set a year rather than an age as a cut-off. Backtrack magazine set a cut-off of 25 or 35 years back (sorry, can't remember which) to decide the most recent coverage allowed in its pages. When first published it was almost steam-only, but it wasn't too many years before they were showing pictures of rail blue Class 47s!

On the other hand, when there is only a single preserved example (Green Arrow?) is it really appropriate to provide a separate page for the one loco, when the working history etc is likely to be covered by the class description page? (I guess this is fundamentally what we are discussing here!) Maybe the most sensible approach is to do what we do for every other article: start with the preserved loco coverage as a sub-section of the class page, and when the sub-section grows large enough, split it off into a separate article. If the sub-section has grown large enough, it shouldn't be too difficult to prove notability.

EdJogg (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I chose 1860 is that it is just over a third of a century from the opening of the S&D in 1825. During that time most of the advances were made in the development of steam locomotives. I'd say there does need to be a cut-off point before which all locomotives are notable. It may not necessarily be 1860 though. It could be 1870, 1865, 1855, 1850, 1845, 1840 etc. All proposals are up for discussion and liable to change as the discussion progresses. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, I think this is a noble effort, but it has two problems. First, it is not clear to me that this WikiProject can make decisions about notability that will be accepted by the broader community. Second, there are already clear guidelines on notability that cover locomotive articles - WP:N. This boils down to "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable".

Why produce a set of complex, debatable special-case rules when this simple statement is already accepted by the wider community and is easy to apply to locomotives? Almost all the locomotives your guidelines would include have published material on them, and other besides. The railway news and book publishing industries have produced copious articles and volumes which we can use to establish notability - see, for example, Russell (locomotive) which we quickly rescued from an AfD since it was easy to supply multiple reliable sources. I doubt, for example, there are many pre-1860 locomotives without multiple sources to establish notability. Gwernol 11:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, I hear what you're saying. Maybe we should first agree as a Wikiproject what we consider to be our guideline for notabilty, then put our proposals to the wider community for further debate. I think that point 1 (and thus 2) should be decided at least, if no others are. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that steam needs to considered in a seperate way to diesel and electric Talltim (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole business is quite simple, per WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" as Gwernol notes. I don't think we can or should attempt to circumvent this by making broad suggestions that all locomotives built before X date will be notable. Adambro (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the debate about whether or not we should have a set of criteria, is there a way to cover off locomotives which are notable due to a specific event in their history - I am thinking of "record breakers" here, such as City of Truro, Mallard etc. Could also be applied to locos which are the first or last to do something - first to travel from London to Birmingham, last to run the length of the GCR mainline etc - not sure those are precise examples, but I'm sure you'll catch my drift... ColourSarge (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All extensively covered in the railway press, the mainstream press, general encyclopedias and multiple books. All the examples you cite are clearly notable right now, with no further work required by us. There must be hundreds of reliable sources on Mallard and City of Truro. Gwernol 20:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)