Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:10, 25 April 2011

Trains Project‑class

Trains Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about technical righteousness. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about technical righteousness at the Reference desk.

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

• WT:TWP

One other H10-44

There is also a Milwaukee Road H10-44 in excellent cosmetic condition at the Brodhead, Wisconsin Museum. It sports number 781 and was built in 1950. I have no indication of operational condition but it sits on an isolated track with Milwaukee Road Caboose 01900.

Silverliner V

 Done Are there any pictures of the Silverliner V on WP? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Search http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Silverliner+V&l=5 on Flickr. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded Flickr image. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Soliciting help with the Grand Canyon Limited

I've just finished creating a web page about the final Grand Canyon Limited...or, more precisely, its nameless successor (the train lost its name at some point between March and June of 1968). According to the Official Guide of the Railways for April 1971 and according to Keith L. Bryant Jr.'s History of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. it was the final Santa Fe passenger train to operate and in fact as far as published schedule is concerned (I don't have records of actual arrival times) was the last pre-Amtrak passenger train of any original Amtrak member railroad. However, when I checked the Misplaced Pages entry for the train, I see that it shows the train being discontinued in January 1970.

I feel that my own references are pretty sound, but I do not have any of the references cited in the article to compare reliability of the source material. I could go ahead and change the article myself, of course, and I may just do that if I can't persuade anyone here to help. However, I would prefer to work with another editor, preferably someone with access to some of the reference material that I don't have. I can provide information from a pretty extensive collection of Official Guides of the Railways and a few other books such as Some Classic Trains and More Classic Trains.

Is anyone interested in working with me on this? If so, contact me via my talk page or by email—my email address is readily available on my web site, Streamliner Schedules (I check the email more frequently than the talk page). Thanks In Advance! Ehbowen (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Eric, I had to re-read your post a couple times to understand the nuanced question: I think it's the difference between the named Grand Canyon Limited and the nameless 23/24 that kept on going after the name (and service to the actual GC) was dropped, right? I think that needs to be explained on the Grand Canyon Limited article page, and if you have Official Guides for the periods in question, those are more than adequate sources IMO.

For what it's worth, Steve Glischinski says in his book Santa Fe Railway: "A version of the train remained in service until Amtrak, although direct service to the Grand Canyon ended in 1968." (p. 141). So it seems to me that the information given in the GCL article is wrong and should be corrected. Does this help? (P.S. Love your SS site.) Textorus (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'm planning to go back and edit the current page as soon as I get some time to sit down and put together the information. Thanks for the reply. Ehbowen (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem bud. Textorus (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On Indian train articles

Hi all,
Following on from the Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express thread above, I found hundreds of other articles on Indian train services which seem to be very low on notability. Most have one source - a timetable website which allows some (not all) details to be verified. Some have no source at all. They typically have content/formatting problems as well; certain typos seem to be very widespread, so I assume there's been a lot of copy & pasting.

• Typical examples might be Bhopal - Pratapgarh Express or Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express. These are representative of two different authors who appear to have written most of the articles; most other articles look quite like one of those examples. There are lots more articles in Category:Train services in India and subcategories. I'm currently doing some housekeeping, trying to fix minor content flaws, and looking for other examples which could be brought into a category.
• Some appeared to have more serious problems. There were duplicates (ie. one article for the A to B Express, and another article for the B to A Express, with copy & pasted content). A small number had faked images or other deceit. I think I've found & fixed most of those, but work is ongoing.

Unilaterally sending them all to AfD, individually, would be disruptive, so I'd like community input: What should we do? If many are deletion candidates, I think it would be a good idea to tie them up in a neat bundle rather than AfDing individually. Perhaps we need some kind of "triage" to quickly distinguish between the fixers and the ones which should be nominated for deletion. Any comments / suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think a cleanup drive is needed. I would hold off on automatically AfDing too much. Certainly these articles need more sources to better establish notability. But I'm wary of offhandedly dismissing these, lest we reinforce a systemic bias. These services aren't inherently less notable than European or American services, it's just our articles that need improvement. Certainly these services draw numerous riders, and likely have some history on record. Searches of English-language Indian newspaper sites may help there.

Some may be best served by merger with the lines they run on, as some of these are only differentiated by stops served. So that may be an avenue to explore. oknazevad (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging by route sounds interesting. Are there any good sources for routes rather than services? (maybe an Indian rail atlas, or something equivalent to RUS documents in the UK).

Very good point about bias. However, I'm skeptical that most individual TER or 普通旅客列车 or DB Regio services would pass the notability hurdle.

It seems increasingly likely that one of the main editors of these articles is something of a hoaxer - in which case I wouldn't trust any detail in such articles unless they're directly sourced, but if we lack resources to find additional sources (in the next week/month/whatever) then they'll be reduced to what's on the timetable website: "Train leaves station at 11:00 and arrives at 22:30". If we can't even get a meaningful name from the timetable websites, how do we even know the article title is sane? bobrayner (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We should resiist the urge to label the editors as hoaxers and belittle their contribution.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried hard to assume good faith, but the evidence became irresistible. If you would like additional evidence, perhaps it would be possible for an admin to undelete some of the deleted images so you could see for yourself - for instance, photos of buildings in other parts of the world were copied off news websites, logos mentioning Indore were crudely photoshopped onto them, and then the photos were presented as uploader's own work - as a photo of a building in Indore. I could also present some diffs of less obvious issues, though it would take a long time to build a complete set of diffs. However, this is a side-issue; in the meantime we still have a big pile of minimally-sourced, low-notability articles on train services. bobrayner (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of them aren't notable, and should probably be taken to AfD. See also an earlier discussion here which ended without consensus. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea that project page existed! Will put a pointer there, too. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

India' train network is one of largest in the world so it is natural there would be large number of trains . There are several hundred articles in[REDACTED] on trains of the United States. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The User bobrayner has unnecessarily created category called train services in India.There is no such category for any other country.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe there should be. In any case, WP:ALLORNOTHING is not an argument. However: have a look in Category:Named passenger trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories are useful for organising large numbers of articles. There are hundreds of articles on Indian train services alone, and bear in mind that India has thousands more notable stations, rail accidents, rail-related organisations, rolling stock &c. I created one category for specific services (and put in subcategories for defined categories of service, the equivalent of EC / IC / ICE &c in parts of mainland Europe). More will join that category as I clean up the mess. Previously, we had lots of different articles scattered in different locations; the parent Category:Indian Railways was a mess; the hierarchy was broken; and Category:Named passenger trains of India contained a hundred non-named train services. I'm not interested in categorisation for categorisation's sake, but Category:Train services in India has been very helpful for the content work that I've been doing. bobrayner (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion raises a larger issue. There's a huge number of articles on en.wiki about rail topics of questionable notability. To give but one example, there is an en.wiki article about every suburban railway station here in Perth, Western Australia, including, eg, the one nearest to my home - a pair of platforms each crowned with a bus shelter. There are also lots of articles about named trains worldwide. Based on my knowledge of what you can find on en.wiki about train stations and train services, I suspect that en.wiki's original policies about what is a notable rail topic and what is not have essentially gone out the window long ago, with the consequence that any station and any named train anywhere in the world would now qualify for its own article, merely because it is a station or named train. I would therefore be reluctant to support deleting any of the Indian articles the subject of this discussion. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Omaha Railroads

Template:Omaha Railroads has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plastikspork _―Œ 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

8th & Market Street (SEPTA-PATCO station); Missing map

What happened to the map at 8th Street (SEPTA station)? The image was in the PATCO Speedline chapter at this link, and had two descriptions; 1)"A map of the station layout on display across from the South Fare Gates," and 2)"A map of the station layout, shown below, is on display across from the South Fare Gates." Now it has a thumbnal with a missing link. ----DanTD (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD notice

The Railway stations in Burundi article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The rather similar Rail transport in Burundi has also been nominated for deletion, on the same grounds that there isn't any (only proposals so far). Tim PF (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a similar problem with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VERIFY with the (non-existent) Railway stations in Rwanda and Rail transport in Rwanda duplicating similar content in Transport in Rwanda#Railways and about the same speculation and proposals for a possible railway to link Rwanda to the coast which just might get extended into Burundi. Tim PF (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are very many such articles (for instance, see Niger and Yemen and CAR and G-B). Note that even for countries which do have railways, the list of stations actually just links to towns (which may or may not have functional stations; they're towns which a railway appears to pass through on a map). Altitudes are taken from an unreliable source. Most of these articles seem to be trying to be a map - for instance an article might contain a sublist of towns on a north-south line, and then a sublist of towns on an east-west line; the town nearest the junction between the two lines would appear in both lists. I planned to replace a lot of these articles with map templates but it sucked up all my free time. There's a long thread about this in the archives but I got tired of swimming against the tide - if the community is now more enthusiastic about further action (or, heaven forbid, if the creator stops churning out this stuff) then I might start work on them again. bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the last point, editors who persist in doing so can ultimately be blocked. Tim PF (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As a general comment, editors here may wish to add Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation to their watchlists. AfD debates with relevance to this project should be (and normally are) listed on that page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. Should I add an AfD tag to Railway stations in Bhutan as well, or just wait for these merge/deletes to go ahead, certain editors to be blocked, and then just proceed with uncontested merges? Tim PF (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects?

Now that Railway stations in Burundi and others have been deleted, should they be recreated as a simple redirects (eg to Transport in Burundi#Railways) or specifically left deleted?

I favour using redirects as there are other articles that use the Template:Railway stations in Africa (which can be edited to point directly to the "Transport in ..." articles), but also those "Rail transport in ..." which use the Template:Africa topic, which will show up as redlinks unless redirected, and may encourage recreation as articles.

The alternative to the latter would be to create a Template:Rail transport in Africa which can also pipe links to the "Transport in ..." articles. Similar for Asia, except that Template:Asia topic is used for both "Railway stations in ..." and "Rail transport in ...". Any thoughts? Tim PF (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to redirect them (I've previously done that with others), although it could be argued that the whole Railway stations in Africa navbox is slightly redundant; it points to dozens of different articles which are either content-free or redundant, and who's going to want to browse between them if we already have more general "Rail transport in..." articles? At worst, just delink countries in the navbox if there's nothing to say about them. bobrayner (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Redirects are cheap. Creating these redirs in place of the deleted articles will help to prevent the recreation of near-empty articles with no hope of expansion. When creating such redirs, point them at a relevant section in the relevant 'Transport in XXX' country article. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies.

@RedRose -- I'd be happy to go along with that, but doesn't that mean that any further identified non-content articles should be tagged for a merge, rather than a delete?

@Bob -- There are many continents where there are sufficient countries that have "Rail transport" or even "Railway stations" to justify articles and use a continent based navbox template; the problem is then how to handle those that don't. If only a few countries in the world justified an article (eg Countries with Irish gauged railways), I'd do a custom template (see Template:High-speed rail -- which has a few red links itself).

I've done some more homework, both on general Misplaced Pages Manual of Style (mostly red links and nav-boxen), and on relevant projects and task forces (Transport, Trains, Stations, and Trains/By country series task force), and am starting to get a clearer picture of things.

1. I didn't even know that WikiProject Stations existed, but then again, it looks rather like a task force. One thing it doesn't appear to do is any "Railway stations by country" series. I also note that both regular station articles and the country series take the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template (with "stations=yes" for standalone stations).
2. The By country series task force "writes and maintains the articles in the Rail transport by country and History of rail transport by country series" (the latter is merely a redirect to History of rail transport, although there are navboxen, and several articles exist). Apart from an Infobox and the use of generic navboxen (eg {{Africa topic}}), there is little guidance (eg on whether or not to have a stub article for a country with no railways).
3. The WikiProject Transport also appears to have no "By country" series, although I note that there is a prominent Red Link at the Transport Portal. There is no infobox, and the navboxen are either generic or derived therefrom.
4. The guidance for Red Links from Navboxen is that they are acceptable if part of a series (eg {{Africa topic}}), but shouldn't really be there in custom boxen (either pipe the link elsewhere, make it a non-link, or remove it). Links to redirects should be avoided, as they won't auto-embold.
5. The advice at the continent-based templates (eg Template:Africa topic) is to use redirects to suppress red-links (but these will not auto-embold). Templates can be pseudo-created from them, but appear to be little better than a redirect.

And my conclusion? That could take months. There appears to be little project guidance on any of these By Country topics, but there could be with a some concerted effort. There's certainly nothing stopping anyone creating or recreating a Railway stations in Guernsey or Rail transport in Pitcairn Islands if they use the default continent-based templates. Tim PF (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

All good points. As far as unwanted articles are concerned, I've watchlisted a lot of them (and will systematically watchlist all of them, when I get to the bottom of my todo list) so any stray new article should be spotted. Watchlisting isn't just for active articles.

Lacking formal national guidelines, I don't think we need to worry too much about all these articles (apart from the sheer workload); hopefully we can apply common sense in judging whether or not we need a separate article on railways-in-X or whether it can be rolled into a parent article, or whether a certain infobox or navbox is appropriate, &c. My personal feeling is that where a country X has (or had, or will have) a single railway, then it would often be better to follow WP:COMMONNAME and write an article about that railway rather than try to apply generic headings & conventions to a "Railways in X" article even where they're an uncomfortable fit. I feel that the "national" pattern is just another attempt to create a neat matrix where it might not always be necessary, and then somebody feels they have to fill every point in the matrix...

Redirects are cheap - and easy. However, sometimes I feel a little guilty where a redirect is effectively getting rid of an existing (albeit useless) article without going through AfD or PROD. It feels extrajudicial. Nonetheless I've used it for things like Railway stations in Sikkim, Qatar, Mauritius &c and others have done the same thing with Vatican City and Lesotho.

I've noticed articles on my watchlist being recreated (or moved there).

Applying common sense would be useful if it wasn't an oxymoron; that's why we really need rules (or at least guidelines), and remember Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. I'm not against "Rail transport in X", "History of rail transport in X", or even "Railway stations in X", so long as they are used sensibly, and some of the ones we have seen recently are patent non-sense.

One of the guidelines is to avoid having a stubby article which could easily be merged elsewhere (eg into "Transport in X"), and another is not to annoy the reader by pointing them to a "main" article which adds nothing to the current article.

I would agree with your single railway in some cases. The stubby Rail transport in Mongolia duplicates quite a lot of Trans-Mongolian Railway and the "Railways" section of Transport in Mongolia, whilst Railway stations in Mongolia merely links to the very stubby Ulan Bator train station. I'd agree to keep the Trans-Mongolian Railway, but the rest of the articles could probably be merged into Transport in Mongolia (with appopriate redirects) without losing anything.

I think a national pattern can work in some cases, especially where they are nationalised (in which case the "Rail transport in X" can redirect to the "X National Railway Co", but that may not always work (there are still independent railways in France, for example).

Redirects aren't really extrajudicial, as they can be reversed, history may be checked, and any useful information can be recovered and merged elsewhere. But did you really want to lose that Good Article Rail transport in Vatican City? Tim PF (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm so glad you brought this up, Tim. Have you seen the "Write - by region" section of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Trains/Todo/Write? It's almost entirely redirects to national railroads. When I brought it up, nobody paid any attention. ----DanTD (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't, actually, or at least not that I remember. I note that that page has fewer than 30 watchers, so that could have had something to do with it. My immediate thought is that those of us concerned about it "sign up" at Trains/By country series task force, and see if we can agree a sensible way forward with the others there.

I notice that the task force pages mentions the {{Infobox rail transport by country}} template as uniquely used at Rail transport in Switzerland, rather than the {{Infobox rail network}}, which appears to be used by a mixture of "Rail transport in X", "Y National Railways" and a few private railways (which should perhaps use {{Infobox rail}}). So, that's another thing that needs to be resolved. Tim PF (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check Reuben Wells (locomotive)

Hello,
I'm currently working as the Wikipedian-in-Residence at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, where students recently created the article for the Reuben Wells steam locomotive located there. I wanted to touch base with you all and ask that you check the article for any necessary clarifications. We were a DYK and some of you may have already come upon the article through that, as I mistakenly included an inaccurate generalization as the DYK hook (I know to triple check hooks, now!) We are about to post a QR code in the exhibit for this train and I thought it'd be helpful to check with you all, in addition to our curators, before that goes live. Thanks ahead of time! Let me know if you have any questions. HstryQT (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment req

The Gare de la Bastille article needs to be reassessed please. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Standardized info boxes?

Currently I have noticed that a lot of the foreign trains, for example the German ones, have infoboxes taken straight from the German language version of the wiki. Obviously when I see them, I add the conversion figures in, but should the English wiki have a standardized layout for ALL train infoboxes? I appreciate this is a lot of work but I'm myself fixing a heck of a lot of older train articles that lack conversion tables.

Lukeno94 (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Where there is a huge number of articles from a foreign Wiki it is not uncommon to use a version of their infobox as it saves huge amounts of time. Note that this one cleverly translates all the fields automatically into English. Other such infoboxes even translate some of the data. Standardising is a good aspiration, but needs to be thought through carefully. For example, it makes sense to include the best features of both infoboxes, not just discard one. The German one covers all railway vehicles, not just locos, and has some extra fields. It also has a neat colour scheme based on the railway colours of the railway operator or firm. The standard loco box probably has unique features too. And the German infobox is a massive help to translators as it leaves them free to do what others can't - translate the article text. Otherwise they have to convert every infobox in every article individually - not good use of their time or skills. If you explain what conversions you have been doing, I may be able to fix the problem within the infobox. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PS Actually there is a more fundamental question here: is it really necessary want to clutter infoboxes with two or sometimes 3 sets of data in different units in every field? Why not leave the data in the units used by the country of origin? --Bermicourt (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:UNITS and MOS:CONVERSIONS (which is a subsection of WP:UNITS). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We are writing for a global audience, therefore both metric and imperial measurements should be given. Mjroots (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We could update the info box to do the conversions automatically. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

An infobox with auto-conversions would be a brilliant idea, would save everyone a lot of work in the long run. I was more on about unit conversions rather than changing them to the British train-style layout, as obviously doing that on my own whim would be a very bad idea. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My attitude to this sort of thing has changed somewhat over time since I became an editor. My present view re articles about non-anglophone-world rail topics is that top priority should be given to the task of translating the articles, rather than to fiddling around with the infoboxes. Certainly the translation of German language articles is made a lot easier by the English language versions of the de.wiki infoboxes, and those infoboxes are more than presentable enough to be used otherwise unmodified on en.wiki. A similar technique is used on some other wikis, eg articles on Japanese wiki about Italian rail topics use modified versions of the it.wiki infoboxes. It's also possible to create a so-called "wrapper" infobox that will automatically transform, eg, a de.wiki style infobox into an en.wiki style one, but I haven't been game to try creating such a "wrapper" just yet - that task would require a fair bit of confidence in getting the programming just right. On the topic of measurements, my view is that both metric and imperial should always be given on en.wiki, not least because both are commonly used in English - metric in most Commonwealth countries, and imperial in the USA and UK. There are various different convert templates that can be used in infoboxes to convert measurements in one of these systems to the other one. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

On measurements, I agree that both metric and non-metric (Imperial &/or US-customary) units should be used on International, US, UK (and probably Irish) topics, but am less worried about seeing non-metric conversions on topics from metric countries (including post-conversion Commonwealth countries and RoI), even if this is at odds with WP:MOSCONVERSIONS.

If it's easier to just take infoboxen from other wikis (eg DE, IT or JP) for their own trains but just with the original metric measurements, then I'd be happy to see that, rather than not getting them at all due to a problem with converting the units. Tim PF (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the metric system is fairly well established now. Having measurements only in that does not significantly alter the usefulness of an article, and its not as though readers will be without web access if they want to invoke a conversion utility in another window. I would not bother converting metric to inches in any context. The content is perfectly valuable without conversion. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Stainby railway station

I'm fairly sure this never existed. There is a discussion at Talk:Stainby_railway_station#No_evidence. If anyone knows anything could they join there, else I will nominate for deletion. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not mentioned in Jowett. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Weight or Mass?

Should infoboxes use the term Weight or Mass? Separate, slightly different, but related, threads started at Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Recent changes: weight to mass and at Template talk:Infobox train#Recent change: weight to mass. Comments there are invited. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Weight". "Mass" may be correct scientifically, but nobody ever talks about the "mass" of a locomotive. Since the likelihood of our ever having articles on railroads in orbit or on other planets are slim, in this context the terms are synonyms so go with what's most common. – iridescent 15:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Images of Stations in the ScotRail Network

I am currently applying to ScotRail for permission to take photographs of all the stations on the Argyle Line for the purposes of illustrating their Misplaced Pages articles, where the current image is more than one year old. In my letter to them I have explained that my interest is to ensure all Misplaced Pages articles for stations on their network have relevant, up to date images which accurately depict the stations (for example, the Carluke railway station has changed quite a bit since the photo currently in use was taken in 1998). I have asked permission to photograph the Argyle Line because my local station lies on it and I wanted to focus on a small group at first. However, if there are any stations in Scotland which this project feels need photographs urgently, I will add them to my application. It will be sent to First ScotRail's Sponsorship and Events Manager on 26 April 2011 so I need any requested stations by them. Please note, Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverly are operated by Network Rail, who have more stringent security in place and give out permits to take photos less frequently (and generally also charge people for the privilege). --Terryblack (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

NER Class D

Currently, there is an article which covers the 1913 locomotive, but there was also an older version. I propose a rename of the Class D article, for more see it's talk page. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:TrackConversion and massive changes to gauge categorisation

TrackConversion (talk · contribs)

Massive and inappropriate metrication of gauge-related categories, also some bizarre renaming. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Project-Class rail transport pages
• NA-importance rail transport pages
• All WikiProject Trains pages