Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. 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.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom

Yesterday there was a lot of renaming of this article and associated machinations, but not a lot of communication, discussion or consensus being discussed on the talk pages. Can those involved please explain their reasons to the rest of us. I invite Simply south and Berk2 to engage with the community. Olana North (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am just saying this list is more than just about passenger operators, which the TOC term refers to, although the intro will soon be corrected. There are also railtour and freight operators listed. That is why i moved it back. Simply south (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is Berk2 who really needs to engage here: all Simply south did was to put things back as they were before Berk2 messed around with it, moving it three times in quick succession. Also, he is right: as the list includes railtour operators, freight operators, etc., "companies operating trains" is more accurate than "train operating companies" as that term is one with a specific meaning (and one which is more specific than it sounds as if it should be). --RFBailey (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Railways In Cheshire

I Am Checking All The Railway Lines In Cheshire And Stations.Railway Uk (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For what? What do you propose to do to them? --RFBailey (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I Have Seen Some Erros In The Liks To The Machester To Stafford Line So I am Going To Correct Them.Railway Uk (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by an "error"? As I explained on your talk page, while you think something may be wrong others may disagree with you. --RFBailey (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Go To Macclesfeild Railway Station On Wikipedia To Find Out.Railway Uk (talk) 11:28,28 August 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed. --RFBailey (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please can you not write every word with a capital letter? It's really annoying. Talltim (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can Someone fix the problem On The article Manchester Picadilly Railway Station i do not know how to fix it. The Railway Sevice box text is all over the place there are invaild links and things like that.Railway Uk (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put the Manchester Piccadilly station services table right now - it has the right number of columns again! The whole section looks messy and I can't help thinking that it would be more useful if a little simplification could be applied - some of the rows just look like stopping pattern differences. (Tell me I'm wrong, but aren't there just three physical routes converging here?) I'm particularly fascinated by what looks like a Virgin service from Terminus to Terminus at the botom of the table. The text above is too complex too, does it really benefit from a separate list of train types serving the station? Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've re-jigged the table a bit, and reworked some of the prose. I don't feel very authoritative on Piccadilly services, so there's a firm limit to how much I feel comfortable doing. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for UK Railways

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal usage parameters for the banner?

On the project banner, {{TrainsWikiProject}}, the portaldykdate and portalSAweek parameters are currently used to show when an article has appeared on Portal:Trains (see Talk:Channel Tunnel for an example that has both in use), and I was thinking it might be nice to have similar parameters (perhaps UKdykdate and UKSAmonth; and btw, I notice there isn't a selected article shown for this month) for when articles appear on Portal:UK Railways. My question before I go off to add them, is would you use these parameters? Slambo (Speak) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no responses after a few days, I'm guessing that the answer would be no. So, unless I hear otherwise, I'll leave it as it is. Slambo (Speak) 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates in Infobox UK disused station

I've been adding coords to various Sheffield area stations, but have come across a couple Oughty Bridge and Wadsley Bridge that use Infobox UK disused station. This infobox has gridref built in, but it's a format that I don't know how to work out. As well as my lack of knowledge the actual coordinates seem to be wrong. Wadsley Bridge had coord dms coordinates in addition to the template and these were right (I added them for Oughty Bridge). Which is the way to go for these templates? Talltim (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

:That's odd. I can add latitude/longitude fields to the template, although they would be decimal rather than degrees/minutes/seconds, but it would then match other templates such as {{Infobox UK station}} and {{Infobox NI station}}, for instance. --RFBailey (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Cancel last post. The template {{Infobox UK disused station}} already has "latitude=" and "longitude=" fields in it, which accept decimal lat/long coordinates. I've looked at Oughty Bridge, and the co-ords as given in {{coor title dms}} were accurate: I've converted them to decimal and added them to the infobox, but I'm not sure whether this is an improvement on what was already there, as it over-wrote what was in the title bar previously. --RFBailey (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I will remove the gridref when I find them, especially as the ones I have seen aren't very accurate. I will put the coords in latitude an longitude in the infoboxes of present tho'. It's a pity 'cos grid references are more handy for finding a location on a paper map, but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the rest of Wiki. Talltim (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Change of mind - I'm going to leave gridrefs, but add Lat-Long as well. The gridrefs I have seen aren't very accurate and I don't know how to fix them Talltim (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

One way to ascertain gridrefs is to find the location on the website streetmap.co.uk (using your x, y coordinates if you will) and then to click on the link towards the end of the page which is marked "click here to convert/measure coordinates" which will give you the gridref amongst other things. I prefer to see gridrefs on disused station articles as it facilitates searches of the Geograph website for images of the station site. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I first saw gridrefs added to the UK infobox a while back and at the time thought this was redundant to coordinates and still do. Clicking the linked coordinates takes you, for example, to this page for Honley railway station, where not only is the location available in a variety of different formats including UK gridrefs, there is also a link to search for images on the Geograph project. Lat/long should always be the primary coordinate system, gridrefs don't need to be included in my opinion. Adambro (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gridref links take you to the same page as Coords links (although there does seem to be some annoying redirect that prevents the easy use of the back button when using Gridref). Thus exactly the same info is available for both types. Gridref does have the advantage of being easy to use with paper maps. I work out coords using a combination of www.oldmaps.co.uk and Google Earth, this gives the advantage of the aerial view to locate landmarks that have long ago disappeared from modern maps (Streetmap does not have aerial photos as far as I can see) and this seems to give me a greater accuracy than Gridrefs produced with Streetmap. Talltim (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe lat/long coordinates should be always be preferred to UK grid references: most mapping systems, including Google Maps, Multimap et. al. now use WGS84 lat/long, all GPS devices can be set to use WGS 84 lat/long, and grid references can be simply computed from lat/long where needed. Most important of all, Google and other search providers will index our lat/long coordinates, and thus make our articles much more useful to Wikipedia readers and other data reusers, but won't index articles with merely UK grid references. -- The Anome (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is, of course, no harm in also including the OS grid references; while lat/long co-ordinates are better for linking to online resources, GPS systems, sat-nav, etc., if you actually want to find something on an actual map (especially an Ordnance Survey one), grid references are what you would use. So even if they aren't linked to anything, they're still useful information. --RFBailey (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means use lat/long coordinates, but however please do not remove the existing gridref from articles dealing with disused stations. The gridrefs that I use are either drawn from reliable third party publications or by comparing one earlier OS map with a later one. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot changes to station coordinates

The_Anomebot2 recently went through some UK stations and changed the formatting of the coordinates, see Bridgehouses [1] for an example. Bot D6 recently went through some other stations (with no repetion of the ones The Anomebot2 did as far as I can see) and changed the formatting in a different way, see Shirebrook [2] for an example. which is the preferred format? Talltim (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your first link is a change to:

{{coord|53|23|23|N|1|27|59|W|region:GB_type:landmark|display=title}}

your second to:

Both are valid; and display in the same way. The "region" and "type" attributes are optional. See {{coord}} and WP:GEO Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Both changes are identical, they convert to {{coord}} with the option "display=title". No other change is made.

BTW the current coordinates type for stations would be type:railwaystation instead of type:landmark. -- User:Docu

British Rail Class 507 - Image attention required

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains:

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the British Rail Class 507 article, specifically Image:507026 Centralb.jpg and also Image:507033 HamiltonSquare.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

And also Image:508136 Nameplate.jpg on British Rail Class 508

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if I were in the UK or going there, I might. Instead, is there a possibility of simply adding a fair-use tag to them? ----DanTD (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would copy the above to here, since it's more likely to get a UK response!.

EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't take that photo now, they have been rebuilt with new light clusters Talltim (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

St Pancras naming

All discussions should take place at Talk:St Pancras railway station/Naming. Simply south (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Chard branch line of the Bristol and Exeter Railway

Hi, An "unreferencedsection" tag has recently been placed on the Chard, Somerset article for the information which relates to the Chard branch line of the Bristol and Exeter Railway. I looked at the B&E article & found the Chard branch is a redlink. Does anyone have nay information which could be used to provide citations to the Railway section on the Chard article?— Rod ^talk 11:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have sorted out the Chard article for you. The redlinked Chard Branch has been on my to-do list for some time now, but is still no where near the top! I have put in a redirect to the Chard article for the time being. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks— Rod ^talk 12:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

357 station photographs left to go

There are 375 National Rail stations left without a photograph. For a list see User:Edward/National Rail stations without a photograph. Edward (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Birkenhead North railway station article, specifically Image:BirkenheadNorth.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A new photograph of this station has just been added to Geograph: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1000863 Edward (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the photograph to the article. Edward (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Grayrigg derailment

The RAIB final report has been released. Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment - Final Stages (less than 350 articles)

Many thanks to all those that have worked to give all of the UK related articles an initial assessment. Over the last few months the number of articles to be rated has plummetted from over 1500+ to just todays figure of about 350. We now need only a small push to get all of the UK articles assessed. Once complete the work required to assess newly added articles will be minimal and the more important work can begin on getting the articles improved, starting with the highest priority ones. Well done everyone for you efforts, we are in the final straight.Olana North (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Now just 325 left to do and articles begginning with the letters "S", "T" and "W". Please help to complete this important exercise. It will help us to prioritise our work in developing articles. Olana North (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Now fewer than 300 articles, and just "S" and "T" outstanding. Olana North (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now fewer than 250 articles. Pyrotec (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just added one to the list (I don't want to assess articles I created myself) ;-) — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment now completed. We have zero articles left to assess. Olana North (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work, all! EdJogg (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing has now issued an indefinite block to User:Olana North and the total is now 76 un-assessed articles. The indefinite block is rather strange, as User:Pigsonthewing not only raised a complaint, but handed down the block too. Its all too "Judge Dredd" like for my taste ... a case of the defense attorney becoming the judge and jury in a case. 68.204.210.238 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing only added the template after Olana North was blocked by CBDunkerson: [3][4]. The template had already been added by Olana North, but was removed as the user was not blocked at the time: [5][6]. —Snigbrook 17:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to everybody as all articles tagged have now been assessed on quality. There is now only the 70+ to be judged on the importance to the project. Simply south (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Line from Finsbury Park

Does anyone know what this freight line is from Finsbury Park to just east of Highbury & Islington? For the complex (perhaps too detailed but it is clear), i have created {{FP-H&I RDT}}. Simply south (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Railway station articles missing geographic coordinates: you can help!

I've made a list of UK railway station articles which are missing geographic coordinates, which you can find at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/railway station articles missing coordinates. There were 1243 such UK railway station article missing geographic coordinates, as of the time of writing.

You can also find similar articles using the Wikipedia:CatScan tool, using this CatScan search.

These articles are currently marked with {{coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data. You can find out how to do this at the Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Please let me know if this is useful! -- The Anome (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

...or better still, replaced the template with coordiantes in the 'latitude' and 'longitude' parameters of the station infobox. (Don't know your coordinates? Find the station on Multimap and the coordinates are stated at the bottom of the page). Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a searchable online set of OS maps from the 40s/50s such as this one for Millers Dale which mark old railway stations. Occuli (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: all currently-operated UK railway stations should now have been automatically geocoded by my bot, so the only stations left should be historical stations. Nevertheless, Beeching to the contrary, they're all part of UK railway history, and they all need geocoding. -- The Anome (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible for the bot to go through stations with existing gridrefs and convert these automatically to coords, leaving the gridrefs entry in place? Apologies if the bot is already doing this. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that those listed do not contain grid references, either; the bot should have checked them for this when it tagged the articles. Providing National Grid references is OK when only grid refs are easily available, because the bot can automatically perform the conversion at a later date; however, when both are available, adding WGS84 lat/long (as used on Google Maps, Multimap etc.) is always best. -- The Anome (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sectional appendices

Would it be acceptable to cite sectional appendices as sources for line speeds and track layout? I am thinking this would not be acceptable as they are "PRIVATE for use of authorised persons only" but anyone can buy them online now.ZoeL (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but you may be better to take this question to the Help Desk. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

SYPTE ≠ TSY

I notice that user 88.105.91.46 has been changing the text of the SYPTE links on station infoboxes to TSY. The PTE is still SYPTE, TSY is a brand name not used solely by SYPTE and isn't the same as the PTE. I know, I work there! Is it worth me reverting them all? Talltim (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

X to Y Line

I recall in recent months there was a discussion on a talk page about whether articles should be named "X to Y Line" or "X-Y Line". But I can't find the discussion or remember its conclusion. Does this mean anything to anyone? --Dr Greg (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I also vaguely remember the discussion, however I cannot get excited as to whether it is "X to Y Line" or "X-Y Line" and be content if the titles (whichever form they currently use) are left as is. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 13:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates now located for 233 disused railway stations

I've now matched the list of Wikipedia articles about UK railway station lacking geographical coordinates with the list of articles at the SubBrit disused railway station archive, and produced User:The Anome/disused station reconciliation, which lists both, together with the coordinates for each station. -- The Anome (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

List of LMS locomotives as of 1947-12-31

Not sure if this is part of your project but I came across List of LMS locomotives as of 1947-12-31, it had two date entries in the intro LMS locomotives as of 1947-12-31. This date is significant because nationalisation of the Big Four occurred the next day, 1948-1-1. which I changed to 31 December 1947. This date is significant because nationalisation of the Big Four occurred the next day, 1 January 1948. . The date representation should really reflect the British date usage and the manual of style indicates that the XXXX-XX-XX should not really be used. The article originator has reverted the change without explanation. The article name should also be changed to List of LMS locomotives as of 31 December 1947 but I just thought I would bring it to the notice of the project before nominating it for a move to see what the opinion is of others. The article see also indicates that lists of LNER, GWR and Southern using the same date format are also planned. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

An alternative approach would be to have a List of British Railways locomotives as of 1 January 1948, which would avoid the need to have four separate lists for each of the "Big Four" and a fifth list for independant companies which were absorbed into British Railways on 1 January 1948. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't really solve the problem--the issue here seems to be the formatting of the date in the article title, not the subject of the list. An alternative title would be "List of LMS locomotives at nationalisation", which avoids the problem of "31 December 1947" vs "1947-12-31". --RFBailey (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Assumes (a bad thing) that you known that 1948 was when nationalisation occurred. Ludgate (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but if you don't then 31 December 1947 is just a random date and therefore not notable, it may as well be a list of locomotives on 1 July 1937 or 13 November 1938. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. --RFBailey (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

LMS Sentinel 7164 AfD

The LMS Sentinel 7164 article has been AfD'd. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Highly unlikely that notability could be proved for this loco.

Article has been 'preserved' at the companion Wiki, Train Spotting World by user Fiddle Faddle (talk).

-- EdJogg (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool

Should the T in in tramway be capitalised? See Talk:Blackpool tramway. Simply south (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When rail articles face deletion

Wikipedia has necessarily stern rules about notability and verifiability which do not always sit well with (eg) a railfan or train enthusiast community. A couple of years ago, maybe a little less, Train Spotting World was started as a companion wiki, populated to a great initial extent with properly licenced WP articles as a basis. Since then it has "rescued" a good number of articles that were in danger of deletion. Word of mouth has spread this around many WP rail enthusiasts, and there has been quite substantial work by many of them to enhance the site along different lines (pun intended?) from WP.

When a rail article faces deletion at Wikipedia please feel totally at liberty to migrate that article to Train Spotting World (giving the correct credit to Wikipedia under the GFDL).

This has just happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Sentinel 7164 as has been stated a little bit above this note, and thus an article that is not at all notable here is preserved there.

The challenge is letting folk here know about the service without the perfectly reasonable question "is this spam?". It would be very useful to rail enthusiasts to know about a substantially more relaxed wiki, but, not unreasonably, WP is hesitant about such links to other sites. Of course, if Train Spotting World were, at some future point, entered into the WP interwiki table that would solve the matter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing that the article has been copied over to TSW. That way the editor who created it won't feel that their work has been a total waste of time. It should be noted that when I notify an article has been AfD'd, it is not canvassing for a vote one way or another, but merely a courtesy to the relevant WikiProject. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely in all the points that you make. I would never dream of suggesting, btw, that you were canvassing "votes", since a neutral announcement of "this is happening" is precisely that.

How can TSW's existence and much more relaxed approach be publicised without the very real potential danger of accusations of spam? The site wishes to work alongside WP as an adjunct to it for editors whose enthusiasm is far broader than correctly notable and verifiable articles here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone who might need it, articles deleted from Wikipedia (other than attack pages, copyright violations and libels) don't just vanish into the ether but go to the retirement home of Deletionpedia, should anyone need the text of deleted articles for whatever reason. – iride scent 15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Never knew that. It's an interesting place as a repository, but it doesn't allow edits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First I'd heard of it, too. But it wouldn't be much of an archive if you could edit it...

...Oh, I see what you mean -- TSW allows editing and can hence keep the article 'alive'.

EdJogg (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

GFDL still applies there, though, so (provided it's credited etc etc) you can take the text of a deleted WP article from Deletionpedia, complete with Wiki-markup (under the "view source" tab), and import it into another Wiki (or back to Wikipedia, for that matter – if the article was speedy/prod deleted rather than via AfD, you're perfectly within your rights to repost it as G4 only applies to material deleted via AfD). – iride scent 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD notification section?

Should there be a section somewhere where AfDs can be notified to the Project? Either a section on the project page or a permanent section on this talk page that is not to be archived. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Canterberry/Olana North

As the people who worked most closely with him, throwing this to everyone here (particularly users like EdJogg who worked closely with him) – I've just noticed the thread a couple above this, and I think it's time to unblock Canterberry/Olana North, provided he and Lucy-marie agree to stay well away from each other. The flare-up that led to the pair of them being blocked is now more than a year old; the block on him was IMO intended to be indefinite meaning "unspecified" rather than "infinite"; Lucy-marie, the other party in that dispute, is unblocked and (more or less) a model contributor; I'm not aware of anything particularly disruptive from any of his accounts since then (listed here if anyone wants to review the histories more fully); and he always did some good work cleaning up loose ends on Southern, NSE etc related articles that nobody else bothered with. Anyone have any thoughts? (Canterberry, feel free to comment here as well. Obviously, if there's a consensus to unblock you and you do go back to hassling L-m, I'll reblock and rangeblock your IP as necessary, but I assume you have enough sense not to; if you do come back I'll also warn her not to bait you either.) – iride scent 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(Seeing as how I'm mentioned...) Not sure which thread you mean. I've never understood why the punishments were so harsh, which is (one reason) why I had been supporting him. The general feeling I had from reading the admin comments was "this editor should never be allowed back on Wikipedia", and this didn't seem fair. Anyway, I have no problem with him being unblocked, and if he should return I hope that he will learn from the various previous experiences, recognise when a discussion is heading in an unfortunate direction and learn to step away.... EdJogg (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No objection to Canterberry being unblocked. Olana North should stay blocked as a sockpuppet. As stated above, any problems and the block can be reinstated by an admin. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no!!! No person shall bo doing anything of the sort, lest they wish to incur the same treatment. WP policy is quite clear on this, and I refer you to WP:SOCK which states "sock puppet uses are forbidden and warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions". The words "aggressive approaches" are bought to your attention. This means ZERO TOLERANCE. The community must stand firm and resist any attempt to unblock any of the accounts listed as being operated by Canterberry, and Olana North is one of many as shown by this Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Canterberry. I shall use WP policies to ~~achieve a proscecution against~~ prevent any unblocking. 81.144.251.46 (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC) ~~Pigsonthewing~~

Hmm, is that a legal threat? I think WP:DUCK could apply here. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I am rather inclined to suggest that Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade should be applied here, instead. It contains some very good advice, and Pigsonthewing, who has a history of 'issues' with Canterberry (and others?) would do well to heed it. ("Let he who has no sin, cast the first stone..." ??)

I note from WP:SOCK: "...in extreme cases being banned from Wikipedia." (emphasis mine). My POV is that Canterberry was NOT such an extreme case (AFAIK), and therefore the discipline applied was excessive. My reading of WP:SOCK does not suggest the level of intolerance proposed by Pigsonthewing.

EdJogg (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The block that I imposed on Olana North (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and hence Canterberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) although he was already blocked), MUST stay in place as I did so after obtaining the explicit consent of the WP community via the appropriate channels (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents . I refer you to the relevant block logs. 81.144.251.46 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC) ~~Pigsonthewing~~

"The block that I imposed..." -- although you are not an admin, and weren't you just back from a temporary block yourself?

This incident was exactly my point about being heavy-handed. Canterberry had been editing quietly all year as Olana North, then had a bit of a short-term bust-up with another editor over some issue (something of a character trait, I believe) and you launch on the scene yelling about sock puppetry. BANG! he gets an indefinite ban, whereas warnings about civility etc would have been more appropriate. Now, if he can be bothered to come back and continue his constructive edits here (and I wouldn't blame him for staying away) he will need to find some other ruse to do so -- change of IP address, new user account (yes 'technically' a sock puppet account, but what choice does he have?), etc. A total ban from WP should be restricted to those editors who persistently vandalise articles or persistently cause problems for other editors, despite warnings to desist.

I really hate it when WP editors descend to this sort of level (and I include Canterberry's (mis-) behaviour here) as it takes all the fun out of editing.

EdJogg (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

← Sockpuppetry is not a blocking offence per se; Canterberry was blocked for hassling Lucy-marie (and others).WP:SOCK doesn't say "Sock puppet uses are forbidden and warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions", it says "While many reasons for using alternative accounts are acceptable, a number of uses for them are explicitly forbidden. In particular, some forbidden uses include, but are not limited to using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, to distort consensus, to artificially stir up controversy, or otherwise to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies. Misuse of an alternative account may result in being blocked from editing." Many if not most WP regulars have alternate accounts and there is nothing in policy against them, unless they're used for votestacking/argument stacking (which was the root of the original issue way-back-when, when Canterberry and Lucy-marie were both using multiple accounts to argue their sides of the Great Miles-and-chains vs Kilometres-and-metres Debate of 2007). L-m served a short block, promised not to do it again, and has behaved perfectly well since then; IMO there's no particularly good reason for Canterberry's block to be so disproportionately greater. Unless someone raises an objection more serious than "I don't like him", then while I don't think it's appropriate for me to unblock him myself, I'll ask someone uninvolved (probably Slambo, who as de facto head of WP:TWP understands the issues involved, but as someone who never works on UK rail articles wasn't a participant in any of the assorted arguments) to take a look. – iride scent 20:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the posts above, falsely attributed to me, were actually by me. YHBT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ho-hum...I did think the signature looked a little odd. My apologies, Andy.

So, I presume we have been entertaining Mr Canterberry all along! (see below) I give up! The above comments from the anon IP are exactly the sort of bizarre behaviour exhibited by Canterberry (or his socks) when responding to his blocking/unblocking requests on his talk page. I couldn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now. It's a shame really, as when he has been 'editing normally' he has made many positive contributions to the railway articles. This time round it took a while to spot the style.

As Iridescent has noted, there was a huge difference in the relative lengths of block imposed, which was where I came in, and I stuck by my defence of him for that reason (despite Canterberry's erratic responses to the block messages!) My postion now is to drop out of it, and I would strongly recommend Andy to do the same, as we have both been involved in these discussions previously. I suggest we let Iridescent take the matter to whatever review panel he sees fit, and allow an independent group to review the matter.

What Canterberry will make of all this is anybody's guess, he obviously hasn't given up on WP yet. Interestingly, IP address 81.144.251.46 is registered to Network Rail Information Systems; and Canterberry is/was a professional railwayman with a considerable knowledge of electrification (IIRC, and if I'm not mistaking one of his alter egos with someone else). As was pointed out previously at the Admins place, a determined editor will find a way round any block (Canterberry used to use different accounts from home and work, to accompany the different IP addresses; however, he must have forgotten which account he was using on more than one occasion, since that particular ruse was also uncovered.) Somewhat oddly though, that IP address left a message on Canterberry's Olana North talk page, and that doesn't look like his style, so is there someone else at that IP address interacting with him/masquerading as him?

I think that's enough from me. I don't wish any ill of the guy, but I don't have time to try and understand his bizarre behaviour, so I'll leave further action to others.

EdJogg (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As the issue has been raised, I think it is only fair that it is fully discussed by the wider Wikipedia community. In view of what Edjogg has written above, if the IP is Canterberry, and it is an indication that he hasn't learnt from the block, then the block should stay. However, there is no concrete evidence that it is Canterberry, only circumstantial evidence. I asked another admin about the etiquette for raising the question of unblocking someone who is indefinately blocked, and the correct procedure is to raise the issue at WP:AN, where the issue can be fully debated and consensus gained from the wider community. Therefore I'm asking UKT members whether they support the issue being raised at WP:AN so that the subject can be fully debated and the block either being released or remaining (whichever the consensus is). Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP has a procedure for establishing the identity of sock puppets so that should be the first step. While I thank Ed for his apology, I'm surprised that he thinks I should "drop out of it", given that my only involvement has been to report abuse directed towards me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already been raised at AN; I'd suggest seeing what comes of that. Incidentally, Checkuser is extremely erratic in cases like this – I'd suspect the Network Rail IP probably supports a number of regular editors who are totally unrelated to each other (see the contribution history of the Met Police's Communications Command for a similar "large public-sector body" editor) – plus, most British home IPs change very regularly (mine changes almost every day). – iridescent 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the question at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock.3F. Lets debate the issue there in a civil manner. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

London, Midland and Scottish Railway

Further to my proposals earlier in the year to push the "Big Four" articles towards GA status, I have this morning commenced a re-write of the article for the LMS. I have started along the lines I proposed in May, which has re-ordered and supplemented the existing article, with a (I hope) more logical sectional structure, designed to allow expansion by the addition of sub-sections as additional information is uncovered. I hope you will take a look at the above article and provide feedback here or on the article's talk page to enable me to judge whether I have got the re-write "right" so far. ColourSarge (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:AlisonW and the issue of what make a minor edit

User:AlisonW has been making a large number of edits to railway templates today. I consider these edits to be minor, but she has not been marking them as such. The problem this cause is that my (and probably other editors) watchlist is now full and brimming with a stream of edits that I would normally filter out as being minor. I find this irritating and irresponsible and asked he to desist on her talk page. She has rebutted my concerns, and so I have bought the matter here to see whether other editors feel simililarly, as I feel that her edits are inconsiderate. Ludgate (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The choice of what constitutes a minor edit is always a matter of personal choice, and there will always be borderline cases. If an experienced editor/administrator like Alison decides that in her opinion an edit is not minor, I see no reason to disagree with her. In this case, all the edits are similar, so I see no reason why you need worry about them. — Tivedshambo _{(t/c) (logged on as Pek)} 13:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, unlike many editors, she has bothered to include an edit summary: "add vde option". Having looked at the first one, I have been happy to accept that she knows what she is doing (this is not a bot edit, remember) and so I just skip over the entry in my watchlist. NOT including an edit summary is MUCH more of a problem than not marking a change as minor.

If your watchlist is overflowing, you can increase the number of changes shown (look at Preferences) to avoid them falling off the end. (Mine is set to the max possible!) Another trick is to temporarilly stop watching one or more pages that have undergone many edits in a short period. A third trick is to maintain a page of 'off-watch' links that you examine occasionally using the 'recent changes' facility for the page. And finally, a fourth trick is to weed out pages that you are really not that worried about, and/or are known to be watched by others, to reduce the number of pages you are watching (I have managed to reduce my watch count to 1592 pages!)

EdJogg (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good grief - I though I was running high at 323! — Tivedshambo _{(t/c) (logged on as Pek)} 14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look. It's quite easy: 70+ GWR loco classes identified with the project banner, several hundred "Thomas the Tank Engine" -related pages and redirects (including 148 deleted images -- ~~must have a clear out soon~~ now removed!), etc, etc. A rolling WikiGnome gathers lots of ~~moss~~ watched pages...

On a more serious note, many of the pages are rarely edited -- I've seen gaps of 6 months to a year -- and some of the obscure characters and inventions from the dawn of the steam age (one of my pet areas of interest) may be watched by few people. You always have to watch out for the random-page vandals in these 'back-waters'.

EdJogg (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out to anyone not aware that AlisonW is the head of Wikimedia UK, so take any advice from her regarding policy & practice more seriously than if it were from a passer-by who's just stumbled onto the templates. – iride scent 17:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I very much hope that, in that case, she will confirm precisely that she is one user with one opinion, one weight. I do not hold with treating any user in a way that is any different from any other user, nor in being swayed by any opinion from any user by giving it more weight than any other user. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on saying anything in this thread, it being ultimately a matter of opinion between two people which has rather 'escaped' but as to "she will confirm precisely that she is one user with one opinion, one weight" I will say one word: Absolutely! --AlisonW (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had the feeling that you would say just that. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand admonished and humiliated. As punishment I shall repeat to myself 100 times over "There is no cabal". Yea right, after that I shall then repeact 1000 times (so that I do not forget), "AlisonW is the head of Wikimedia UK". Ludgate (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Post Script: Let this be a lesson to all other editors, you give respect to the "Senior" editors AT ALL TIMES. If you ever be "dissing" then expect all the heavyweights bro's an sis's to come tumbling down on top yer head. Man, this place sucks.Ludgate (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do, please, give it up. Take a deep breath and start again. Your behaviour here is, to me, less than civil. I dropped you s note on your talk page yesterday, but you persist in making this a public "big thing". If you have to have a fight, do it on another page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut WP:RAIL

Used to lead here, but WP:TWP have stolen it! WT:RAIL still leads to this talk page. What are we to do about this? Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Discuss where it should redirect and why. Simply south (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I say we kidnap WP:TRAINS until they hand it back… – iride scent 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I go away for a little while and look what happens. An anon started the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains on November 16 (good). There wasn't much in the way of critical discussion on the merits of the proposal (bad); it was basically a "this is weird" statement followed by another editor making the change (very bad). It seems to me that the redirect should be put back to its original destination until a consensus can be reached by both projects.

Now, as to the merits of changing WP:RAIL to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, I'm currently split. For the last 17 months, RAIL has pointed to the UK Railways project, and WP:Rail has pointed to the UK Railways project for 26 months, so my first thought is that it should not be changed. The reasoning as I understand it for the change is that "rail" is a generic term and does not, by itself, imply any specific geographic or political region. Since the Trains project is concerned with rail transport on a worldwide scale, it is logical that a politically generic term should point to a politically generic project. I understand that WP:UKR is already in use by the Ukraine project, but WP:UKRAIL redirects here at the moment. So, given that there are other shortcuts that lead here, other than the history of the shortcut itself, is there a compelling reason to keep WP:RAIL pointed here that I don't know? Slambo (Speak) 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn; on the one hand I agree with you that "generic" names ought to point to the parent project (as with WP:ROADS, WP:RIVER, and of course WP:TRAINS), and we already have WP:UKT; on the other hand, this has been the pointer here for a long time and there's no obvious replacement. Whichever way it goes, the IP is right that there ought to be a clear pointer to the other project (one of my niggling irritations with the portal is how unintuitive it is for a newcomer typing in WP:TRAINS to navigate to the project pages). – iride scent 21:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, there are two issues here. The first is whether it was the right thing for another project to "steal" the redirect without reference to this project and its members, and the second being whether or not to accept the change that has been made.

For what it's worth, I believe that the other project should, out of courtesy, have started a discussion in this project prior to initiating the change - it is unreasonable to expect members of this project to pick up on a discussion on another page.

On the second point, it does kind of make sense that the "vanilla" reference should point to the parent project and it seems to me that WP:UKRAIL should point here. However I would think that, again, out of courtesy and proper form, the other project should provide a clear means of navigating to this project, for the benefit of all users who have historically used the WP:RAIL to arrive at this project.

In summary, no problems with where the shortcuts lead, only with the way in which it was arbitrarily reassigned. For example, if we went and re-assigned it to point back here, without reference to the other project, would that not be wrong too?ColourSarge (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who originally created the (uncapitalised) shortcut as this project did not have one. I also placed it at Wikipedia:List_of_shortcuts/Project_shortcuts#Topic-oriented_WikiProjects. IMO it has historically pointed to here so should do. Simply south (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the move should be undone, and the page move protected. Looks like TWP don't want to discuss this, so we should take action to restore the status quo until they do. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that there is already a message on their discussion page inviting them to come and engage with the members of this project, however they have failed to do so. Just so we cannot have "two wrongs don't make a right" thrown in our direction, would it be worth putting an additional note on their discussion page stating that what Mjroots proposes will be carried out in 24 hours unless they can come and justify their actions to this project? ColourSarge (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to take sides, if the matter can't be resolved amicably, I will raise the matter at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a better idea, Tivedshambo. Raise it there and let the wider community discuss it. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I've been trying to get those involved at TWP to join the discussion. Personally, I have no strong feelings either way on where the redirect points. Slambo (Speak) 18:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Raised at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 21 — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BS icon deletion discussions

Two BS icons are being discussed for deletion.

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BSicon tKRZo.svg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BSicon tBRÜCKE.svg. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Approximate coordinates for about 500 disused stations

I've made a list of approximate geographic coordinates for disused stations, extracted from the http://www.npemap.org.uk/ URLs linked from those pages: see User:The Anome/npemap.org.uk URLs. Unfortunately, many of them are up to 1km off from the real coordinates of the station. Would this data be useful for geocoding articles that are currently lacking geographic coordinates? Would anyone be interested in spot-checking some of them to check for systematic errors in my conversions? -- The Anome (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have been added the http://www.npemap.org.uk/ URLs to stations, I have been extracting the coordinates. I will have a look at what you have done over the weekend. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah! If you've got the coordinates, that would be much better than my hacked-up conversions. If you have either the easting/northing data (in any format) or latitude/longitude data (in any format), just put it up in plaintext on a wiki page (in any reasonably sane format), let me know about it on my talk page, and I can parse it and generate accurate geotags from that data. -- The Anome (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have an OS Grid Reference, then {{oscoor}} will generate a link enabling the location to be found. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite that easy. For example, look at Crawford railway station. I added http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#294,620,1 (well actually I had copied the code from Auchencastle railway station and not changed the URL - just corrected). I then went into the map and highlight the station symbol which gave me the latitude and longitude. A quick paste and copy got the coordinates into the infobox. So taking your list and a bit of manual work will get reasonably accurate coords into the infoboxes of disused stations. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 19:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the above, and other geocoding activities, around 400 disused stations have had location coordinates assigned in the last two days. I've made a list at User:The Anome/Disused UK railway stations still lacking coordinates of the 631 remaining stations I can identify that lack coordinates. If anyone is interested in using the npemap.org.uk system to add "easting, northing" values to the ends of the lines in that page, I'll be happy to use my bot to geocode those articles. -- The Anome (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Second batch of disused station articles now being geocoded

Hundreds more disused stations have now been geocoded through this process, through the diligent and seemingly indefatigable efforts of several editors, and a second batch of candidate articles is now being processed. If any other editors want to contribute to this process, please see User:The Anome/Disused UK railway stations still lacking coordinates for the list of remaining un-geocoded disused station articles. -- The Anome (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

LMS article discussion

I have been doing quite a lot of editing on the article for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway recently and have added a discussion to the talk page here for other editors to comment before I continue. Your contributions would be welcome. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom or Great Britain

Hi, I notice a lack of consistency here, on one hand a decision was taken to discuss the history and present day state of the railways by geographical division of Great Britain and Ireland but then we have the list of TOCs, the station list, the freight operating company list, the high speed rail article, the local rail transport list and the list of stations covering all of the UK. The rail network in Northern Ireland has very little in common with the National Rail network of Great Britain so I think the articles should be consistent and deal with Great Britain only. I understand there is a case for including all of the UK though as it is a single sovereign nation but then all of the UK could be discussed in History of Rail Transport in the United Kingdom. ZoeL (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom comprises England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Great Britain comprises England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Eire, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey.

As far as I can tell, this WP covers all the above. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's incorrect - Great Britain only covers England Scotland and Wales. It does not cover Northern Ireland (and certainly not Eire), nor the Channel Islands or Isle of Man, which are Crown Dependencies. For coverage of this wikiproject, see the previous discussion here. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tiedshambo, I suspect that Mjroots has mixed up the definitions, i.e. the UK definition appears against GB, and the GB definition appears against UK. I also accept the bit about Crown dependencies: UK = GB + Northern Ireland.Pyrotec (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, I agree - railways, like a few other things, such as some sports, have always been more naturally partitioned geographically than politically. Partition the articles etc. into Great Britain and the island of Ireland.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Easiest way out is to have a separate WP for Irish railways, leaving England, Scotland, Wales, IoM and CI for us. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Where I put Great Britain above, I should have put The British Isles Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, all editors are invited to view this page Terminology of the British Isles which contains this excellent diagram. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "British Isles" raises potentially sensitive issues, and would be best avoided imho. Stick with the present and UK/GB. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what happens when you mix Geography and Politics. It should be borne in mind that when the railways were built in Ireland, that country was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Now, leaving politics out of the discussion, we could split the Project in two - Ireland and the rest of the UK, (including CI and IoM). Alternatively, railways in Northern Ireland could fall under the remit of both wikiprojects. The third alternative is to maintain the status quo, and have WP:UKT responsible for all railways which fall in the area defined by the "British Isles" in the diagram. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My first post here was not about the scope of this wikiproject but the lack of consistency in the articles . There is an article on Rail transport in Great Britain and History of rail transport in Great Britain but many other articles like Train Operating Company and list of stations and trains deal with all of the UK when the Norhtern Ireland network has very little in common with the National Rail network of Great Britain. ZoeL (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking the railways of Northern Ireland as an example, there is more than a passing relationship - until 1947 the Northern Counties Committee was owned by the LMS. Simply because the two networks are not physically connected does not mean they are not related. The Ffestiniog Railway has very little in common with the Kent and East Sussex Railway, they are not connected, use different track gauges and were built for different purposes - I doubt anyone would suggest we should create a project for Welsh narrow gauge slate-carrying railways and one for standard gauge passenger railways in the south of England. The project does not "own" the articles, we merely tag those which have relevance to the scope that has been defined by our members, and as a former component of a predominantly English company, the railways of Northern Ireland clearly fit within our scope. ColourSarge (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So long as Northern Ireland remains part of the UK, then its railways fall within the scope of this project and ought to be tagged as such. User:ZoeL raises a valid point about NI coverage, and looking at Rail transport in the United Kingdom, it seems that NI has been grouped with Ireland on the basis that both are broad gauge. However, NI coverage in the article on Rail transport in Ireland is minimal to the point of non-existent. In the absence of an Irish rail project where the question could be raised, should (a) the situation be left as it is - accepting that although NI falls within this project's scope, it is better dealt with under an Irish umbrella, or (b) the NI content be moved to the UK articles? It's also worth noting the previous 2004 discussion. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The status quo should be maintained unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. Better to have the articles within the scope of one project than none. ColourSarge (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the question was not about the scope of this project but consistency in the articles as some like Rail Transport in Great Britain and History of rail transport in Great Britain deal with Great Britain only and others deal with all of the UK. ZoeL (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is better to deal with separately. This was what was decided at Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes four years ago. Tony May (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the decision there but there are many articles that deal with all of the UK like List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom. ZoeL (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A1

Project members may be interested in a discussion taking place here about whether or not to consider 60163 Tornado as a member of the original class, or a replica. ColourSarge (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite all the newspaper reports, this is not the first British steam locomotive to be constructed for fifty years - we have the Iron Duke replica to use as a precedent. This is documented in the GWR Iron Duke Class article where it is given its own section that makes it clear that it was not part of the original construction. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geof, thanks for that, wasn't aware of he Iron Duke article. I think the issue being discussed here though is subtly different. From the Iron Duke article I surmise that the replica was a copy of an pre-existing locomotive, a facsimile if you like. The contention in the discussion I have highlighted is that because Tornado is not intended to replicate any of the previous 49 locomotives, but rather to be a 50th produced to a modification of the original design, it is not a replica, but could potentially be viewed as a member of the class in its own right. ColourSarge (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the differences are sufficiently obvious, particular historically.

Getting slightly off track though, the Iron Duke replica did not run on the main line (wrong gauge obviously), and could also be considered a rebuild because it used an Austerity 0-6-0ST boiler. It is also a non-exact replica of a specific member of the original Iron Duke class, whereas Tornado is a generic replica of the original Class A1. Tony May (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the original Class A1 was not produced by Peppercorn! Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, just to clarify, I was encouraging the debate on the article talk page, not here, and my statement above was to highlight what I perceive to be the substance of the debate to avoid ambiguity. The aim was to bring a wider audience than the 3 or 4 editors previously contributing to the discussion and therefore achieve a wider consensus :o) ColourSarge (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues raised at WP:AN/I Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Template - Railway stations opened in 1803 (etc)

I'd like to draw your attention to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Template - Railway stations opened in 1803 (etc) I have just started. --Dr Greg (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Talyllyn Railway rolling stock

I've been working slowly at improving this list for some time, and have nominated it for peer review, prior to hopefully bringing it up to Featured List status. Any re-assessments, suggestions or comments would be welcome. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 22:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

60163 Tornado

It's been suggested that this article may be close to GA status. Would anyone like to look it over and decide whethet it is worth nominating it for GA? Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, not a comprehensive look but i had a brief one. If you are thinking of nominating the titular page, then i would say NO as it is a redirect! To be more serious on the actual article this is just my opinion but the Background section should have more references. Also, where did you get the diagram or did you replicate it off something or create it? Also, wouldn't it make more sense to move that into the design section? Just my thoughts. Its close. Simply south not SS, sorry 00:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've not edited the article, so can't say where any info was obtained from. It was mentioned here that it may be approaching GA status, which is why I raised it here. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hellingly Hospital Railway

I've opened a peer review on Hellingly Hospital Railway – if anyone has any comments and/or suggestions, do feel free! Although it's short, and on a very obscure topic, I think this is actually quite a good article in striking the balance between "what would the general reader want to know?" and "don't oversimplify to the point of putting off people with specialist knowledge". Any comments welcome… – iridescent 20:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Scammell Scarab (article created)

FYI: an editor has created a page for the Scammell Scarab, the distinctive delivery vehicle / tractor unit used in huge numbers by British Railways in the 1950s and 1960s; the successor to the original "Mechanical Horse". I know it's not a directly rail-related subject, but it was so closely associated with railway goods work that I thought UK Rail editors might be interested in reading/working on the article.

EdJogg (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can i just put this to bed?

Sunil has moved a station in Battersea to Queenstown Road. It does say this on the signage but various timetables, live departure boards and even an historial diagram shown on the article show it has Battersea in the name. Plerase see Talk:Queenstown Road railway station. Simply south not SS, sorry 11:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

2 moves

I have proposed two moves

Simply south not SS, sorry 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Commuter rail in the United Kingdom

Hi, I've created the above article and would like to request editors to expand it. I don't feel it's a particularly specialised subject given the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who commute by suburban rail to the major cities. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done a little expanding in the Manchester and West Midlands areas. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rapid transit

Could i just ask a question? How often is Rapid transit used in the UK as a term? I have hardly ever heard of it much until i came to Wikipedia, therefore i am certain it is not in common usage (especially being a UK Wikipedian). Simply south not SS, sorry 23:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO not often. I too would be interested in other peoples opinion Talltim (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard it being used here, I'm only familiar with the term having spent time in Toronto. I think that 'transit' is the part that's most foreign, as we speak of 'public transport', not 'public transit'. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To my ear, the word is an Americanism that has started catching on in the UK. There is the Nottingham Express Transit system.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think in the UK we tend to refer to individual systems by their individual names, i.e. The Tube, Metrolink, Supertram, Tramlink etc - and collectively most of our "Rapid Transit" systems are Light Rail. It's a term that I have heard of, and I would know what it meant if asked, but it's not one I would use in the course of conversation about, for example, the London Underground (apart from anything I am sure I would be called to account for using the word "rapid" in connection with the Circle line!!! :oP ColourSarge (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the UK the word is more associated with a certain iconic van made by Ford, so "Rapid Transit" might have connotations of White Van Man!

...and IIRC there have been recent adverts for yogurt-style drinks which are supposed to improve your 'digestive transit'?
("Rapid Transit" doesn't bear thinking about!!!)

EdJogg (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nottingham Express Transit is the only UK usage I can think of off the top of my head. There's Dublin Area Rapid Transit as well, which isn't in the UK but is at least in the same area. In both cases I assume the name was chosen more to create a neat acronym than any other reason. – iridescent 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

'Rapid Transit' imho is only used in 'technical' discussions and papers, and almost never in colloquial speech in the UK. --AlisonW (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The buzzword 20 years ago was Light Rapid Transit (or LRT). The systems that this was applied to are the Tyne & Wear Metro, and Docklands Light Railway (DLR).--- Romfordian (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As a final (late) comment on this, Heathrow's ULTra PRT project is described by the (presumably international) company as a rapid transit system, but the BBC refer to it as a rapid transport system. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Class 455 on 'long distance' services?

An anonymouus editor modified a number of files (just after Christmas) to indicate that British Rail Class 455 EMUs have been sighted on services between Waterloo and Portsmouth, and Waterloo and Weymouth (and similar edits - for example, this diff, this diff and this diff).

The quality of the additions is poor, in places, and in any case does not give any indication of how often these sightings might occur. As the Class 455 is a suburban type with no toilet facilities (not much help if you have an hour's journey back from London with a toddler!!) I find it very surprising that they might be used on such long routes. If it was a one-off or crew training journey, there shouldn't be a mention here anyway.

Anyone know about such things and can advise?

EdJogg (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO WP:NOT#NEWS is all you need to know. Nuff said. Bhtpbank (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering whether i should start up a newsletter for this project? Simply south not SS, sorry 23:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be more viable as a newsletter for WP:TWP with a discrete UK section (and ideally also a discrete section for WP:TIJ, the other independent daughter project of TWP); that way it reaches a much wider readership and (hopefully) is more likely to reach the "critical mass" of participants to stop it becoming dominated by a couple of editors, and would help with cross-pollination between the projects and with publicising Portal:Trains. You might want to run the idea past Slambo & co. – iridescent 14:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

More UK railway stations needing geocodes

Although almost all ATOC railway stations should now have been geocoded, and there is a systematic effort to find and geocode pre-Beeching-Axe disused stations using old maps, there are still a substantial number of other stations without geocodes. I've made a (non-exhaustive) list of these at User:The Anome/Yet more railway stations to geocode. I hope this is useful. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How should a railway such as the Anglesey Central Railway be geocoded? (I note that User:The Anomebot2 recently did the rounds. ;) Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rolling stock pages

Has it been approved to change all the rolling stock pages so dramatically? They are now ordered by region instead of TOC. I think this is silly on some articles such as the Class 158 and I do not like the new layout. Any information? Year1989 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I only just found this, and having looked at the Class 150 and Class 158 I'm not sure what to make of this. I can understand the idea that people want to know where trains operate as opposed to who hires/operates them, but Wales effectively maps to Arriva Trains Wales, and Scotland maps to First Scotrail. The regional arrangement may make more sense in areas such as the North of England where franchises intermingle (Northern Rail and First Transpennine Express).

One argument against arranging by TOC is that the TOC pages already list the rolling stock they use, so why not list something different on the rolling stock pages? I'm on the fence with this, and would appreciate other people's views and opinions. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point in favour of this new system dawned on me while looking at the Class 175 page: If we talk in terms of regions rather than TOCs, then it's suddenly easier to give a historical view of stock usage across franchise handovers. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. Whenever any articles are arranged by TOC they are inherently subject to increased edit churn due to the transient nature of the TOCs. Using regional headings reduces this churn considerably. I've only taken a quick look at the Class 150 page, and I like the revised format -- much easier to see the historic context, which is, after all, what the articles are supposed to cover (even if the history is only 'last week'). The previous version required much more work on the part of the reader to follow the history of usage for a region. EdJogg (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My inately conservative nature made my immediate impression be "why change?", but on reflection I agree that it is a move for the better. The bulk of information for most currently running stock seems to be TOC orientated and this change may help people to add information to put it in a better historical context, and help fill in the pre-privatisation blanks. The only issue is applyinging it consistantly accross relevant pagesTalltim (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I made most of these changes for the reasons outlined by other editors above. I have done all UK DMU's in operation (I think), as well as Intercity 125. EMUs (which I know less about, not living in an electrified regionalso known as the north of england) I have not done.

Addtionally I found that arranging by geography reduced much duplications accross sections.

Should EMUs be done now ? - if anyone immediately volunteers I will leave it to them, otherwise it can go on my to do list... FengRail (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this is a good example of WP:BOLD at work, and working well. I can't see any reason not to extend the work to EMUs, but I live in an even less electrified region (also known as Wales ;) ), so they're out of my patch too. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually tried to make a start on EMUs - but my knowledge of 'network south east' just wasn't good enough - (I imagine the lines out of London can be easily diveded into regions - eg Brigton line,Undergorund,Canterbury line etc, or whatever) - I'll have to leave this task to someone else.213.249.232.187 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)FengRail (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)