Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:49, 27 January 2017

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

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

List of EuroCity services

I've created this article, based on the list that was on the EuroCity pages, to try and make it more informative and current. It's a work in progress, so it's still incomplete and a bit messy - any contributions to completing the page would be welcome. I noticed that a number of people are creating new articles for specific TEE/EC services, so this ties neatly into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtVandelay13 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 March 2013

AfD

The GEC Alstom Push-pull article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk)

Section definition article

As I was preparing the text for the next Portal:Trains selected picture, I noticed we didn't have an article describing the use of the term "Section" as it pertains to railway operations. I just started it with the title: Section (rail transport). I know much more about North American operations and use of the term, and would very much appreciate input for use of the term in other regions. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 19:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Lexington Avenue–63rd Street (63rd Street Lines) needs a revision now the Second Avenue Subway is open

I was just quickly reading this article and realized that it needs a thorough revision now that the Second Avenue Subway has opened mostly to clean up tenses as there are sections that still refer to this project as if it were under construction.

Graham1973 (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Richmond and Petersburg Railroad

I would like to ask the attention to Richmond and Petersburg Railroad. The author of this article add excessively big pictures to the article. It is going straight to an edit war now, so I ask the advice of others. The discussion is now at Talk:Richmond and Petersburg Railroad#Excessively big pictures. The Banner talk 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons photo challenge in January

FYI, please take a look at commons:Commons:Photo_challenge#2017_.E2.80.93_January_.E2.80.93_rail_transport. It would be nice to have some "technical" picture too and also an expert eye is more than welcome to improve categorizations and descriptions. Some of the uploaders are newbies or they are simple photographers, they don't know a lot of details. I hope you can find something useful to reuse as well.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Are stations automatically notable?

I ran across Udyog Nagar metro stationpart of the Green Line (Delhi Metro) being used to promote a person, and then found that a number of metro stations on the line have articles. These consiste mainly of when they were open and the buildings around them. Why would they be notable? Doug Weller talk 08:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Subject to WP:V by WP:RS, railway stations are held to be inherently notable under WP:NGEO. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We have as a rule held metro stations to be notable; station buildings tend to be notable as well. Station stops continue to lack consensus. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So a full professor at a good university may not be notable, but a run of the mill train stop is. Something's wrong here. But NGEO makes it clear that WP:GNG still applies, so how can metro stations be automatically notable? Doug Weller talk 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Railway stations almost inevitably generate an enormous amount of independent documentation from planning, construction, service changes, etc. Take for example River Works (MBTA station), an article that I've put quite a bit of work into. That station consists of nothing but asphalt strips and a bus shelter, and yet it has received substantial independent press coverage that passes the GNG with flying colors. Metro stations and mainline rail stations can generally be assumed notable - even if it hasn't been added to the article yet, the information is definitely available - and the rare times when this is not true can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As Mangoe said, stops (particularly tram stops) have a mixed record, as it's often more difficult to find substantial coverage. Whether they pass notability often depends on whether someone has put in the effort. Notability is also intentionally higher for living people than most other subjects, as a way of discouraging self-promotion and so on. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a full professor might fail WP:PROF. There are many reasons why someone might be promoted to full professor which have little to do with that person's wider importance. Heaven help us if the vagaries of promotion and tenure review are ever incorporated into a notability guideline. The availability of independent sourcing tends to be a problem. As far as train stations go (metro and intercity) it's simply a question of common outcomes at AfD. Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Doing random-article patrol, I found Kojōhama Station. The structure looks pretty small and unimpressive, and the article has been tagged as unreferenced for a long time. I could not reliable third-party references with significant coverage of it, as needed to satisfy GNG. Rather than just sending it to AFD, I thought i would check in here and see if anyone could provide the number and quality of references to show it is notable. "We have as a rule held metro stations to be notable" is not enough. Some of the types of reference mentioned above, "independent documentation from planning, construction, service changes, etc." might not be adequate to satisfy GNG. Edison (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Japanese-language sources are always going to be harder to find. Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

An inability to find sources doesn't protect an article from being deleted. And I agree that the independent documentation mentioned doesn't cut the mustard. Nor do common outcomes make anything automatically notable. GNG gets ignored too often. And forgot professors, how about primary schools? They generate at least as much documentation, but they aren't automatically notable. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You brought professors up; I'm not sure why we're now forgetting them so quickly. Anyway, this being the Trains project, I'm unfamiliar with what happens to primary schools at AfD; I would check in with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools. As I'm sure you realize deletion discussions often turn on whether sources are believed to exist, not whether they can be found at this exact moment. It would be difficult to counter systemic bias otherwise. Attempts in the past to purge articles whose sources would be in a foreign language were strongly resisted by the community. Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about vehicles is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

West Somerset Mineral Railway

A group of editors have been working on getting West Somerset Mineral Railway up to GA standard. I think we are nearly there but it has been pointed out that some of the references lack page numbers. Many of these are available through my local library and I should be able to get those within the next week or two, but does anyone have a copy of Carter, E. (1959). An Historical Geography of the Railways of the British Isles. Cassell. ASIN B000WSRHU6. and could check page numbers for us? Any other edits to the article would, of course, be welcome.— Rod 19:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle

There is a discussion about how best to improve this template to make it work with {{Infobox}}. Would be wonderful to get some people from the taskforce to chime in. The discussion is at: Template_talk:Infobox_German_railway_vehicle#Multiple_issues. --Zackmann08 (/_{What I been doing}) 00:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Gauge changing without bogie changing

claims that a the Strizh (train) can run with both Russian and European gauge. Would be nice with more details on this. --Ysangkok (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I did hear of a railway where the gauge of the passenger carriages could be altered by sliding the wheels along the axles, the axles had some means of stopping the wheels from sliding out of gauge. Can't remember when, where or which. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It is possible to run stock on both Spanish and Portuguese broad gauge tracks if a special wheel profile is used to account for the 4mm difference in gauges. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The one I saw wasn't millimetres, but several inches. Maybe from 3'6" to 4'8½", or maybe from 4'8½" to 5'6" - that's the sort of scale here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I did hear of a railway where ... Sure. Google Hendaye/Irun (happened there since 1960s). Check Spanish high speed lines doing this. Not "4 mm", but 233 mm. (1,668 mm (5 ft 5+21⁄32 in) Iberian gauge – 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in)). Billions of gauge changes undisturbed and without accidents. -DePiep (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Montrose Railway

The redirect Montrose Railway has been nominated at RfD. I have found that there are three historical railways with Montrose in their name we have articles about, two in Scotland (Montrose and Bervie Railway and North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway), and one in California (Glendale and Montrose Railway). Were any of these ever known just as the "Montrose Railway"? If you know one way or the other, or have other views on this redirect, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 21#Montrose Railway. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass move of railway articles on narrow gauge lines may hinge on discussion at one article

Editors here may wish to be aware that, in early January, an editor working on hyphenation moved a large number of articles from "Narrow gauge railways in Foo" to "Narrow-gauge railways in Foo". Under WP:BRD I have reverted many of them. However, the only ongoing discussion is at Narrow gauge railways in Saxony. The point at issue seems to be whether we follow a grammatical guideline or the sources. Both variants are widespread, but the hyphenated version appears to be (about three times) more prevalent in the US than elsewhere. The International Union of Railways glossary doesn't hyphenate the phrase and, clearly, since most if not all articles and their categories were unhyphenated before, that appears to have been the consistent convention for these articles hitherto. I'm personally not against editors hyphenating the words; but feel we should be free to adopt either and not forced to use one particular, quite strongly regional, variant. The grammatical view is that the hyphen aids clarity; others would say in this case it doesn't and that we should be free to follow the sources. The reason I raise this here is that there is now a proposal that the outcome of the discussion on this one article should decide the policy for all of them (and presumably the associated categories). Whether that happens remains to be seen, but I felt I ought to flag the debate up. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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