Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

DLR colours

Consensus is to use the colour #00645F, Template has been updated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TAnthony has changed the text colour at Docklands Light Railway rolling stock from white (the official colour) to black citing WP:COLOR. While this might technically meet the specifications, to me it harder to read and is incorrect to the colour scheme being used. Thy have also not changed the DLR colours anywhere else as far as I have spotted.

My reversion to the easier to read official colours was reverted, despite an explicit request to discuss matters before doing so, so here we are. I'm not against accessibility but TfL's official colour schemes are compliant with contrast requirements (otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use them afaik) and, for me at least, black on the cyan is significantly harder to read than the white. Finally, if we aren't using the official colours for the DLR on the rolling stock article we shouldn't be using them anywhere and should decide what to use instead - which is why I called for a discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Bottom line, your color contrast using white text violates all four WCAG accessibility criteria, and places the article into Category:Articles using Template:Infobox train with invalid colour combination. There is no need for discussion. WP:COLOR requires that all criteria be met for accessibility reasons. Your teal color #00B2A9 with black text passes all four criteria. As I noted in my edit summary, take a look at the color tool: https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=FFFFFF,bg=00B2A9 which illustrates this. A darker shade may meet the contrast requirements with white text. But it doesn't matter if you or other editors personally believe the color contrast is more readable, there is a policy. And since you're concerned about it "matching" the official colors, I would refere you to {{Infobox YouTube personality}}, where you can clearly see that the red in the infobox does not exactly match the color of the YouTube logo. That bright red color fails the criteria when used with either black or white text.— TAnthonyTalk 15:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, these are not "my" colours they are the official colours used in multiple places and should be handled uniformly which requires discussion. No policy permits revert warring. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
So let's discuss. That color combination is inaccessible, which is a real problem for our readers and we shouldn't do that. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
So why change only one instance of it? Why leave the several examples at the much more prominent Docklands Light Railway and Template:DLR RDT with the inaccessible text? Why edit war to force through a change in only one place despite multiple explicit requests to discuss it so that those people who don't understand the jargon can learn and so presentation can be consistent across articles? Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
As far as I've found, the following places use white text on #00B2A9: Template:DLR RDT, Docklands Light Railway#Services, Docklands Light Railway#Business trends, Docklands Light Railway#Victoria/Charing Cross extensions, Docklands Light Railway rolling stock whereas none use it with black text. If a change is made it needs to be made everywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I've looked at the pages Thryduulf has mentioned and none of the colour combinations are so hard to read that it urgently needs to be changed. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 12:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, I am working from the mainteance category Category:Articles using Template:Infobox train with invalid colour combination, which only covers infobox template usage. Docklands Light Railway rolling stock is using the color combination in a navigation template, which is not currently tracked. It's still wrong. I'm not sure what you guys aren't understanding about this. This is not the kind of thing we can decide to leave alone because we think it's not "so hard to read". You don't get to decide that. I have actually never seen a use of color contrast that fails all four WCAG accessibility criteria. Have you looked at the color tool link? These criteria are designed because certain types of vision impairment make it impossible to see color contrast like this. Wikipedia has a duty to make its content accessible to anyone.— TAnthonyTalk 13:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
BTW, edit warring is when you revert more than three times in a 24-hour period, not what is happening here.— TAnthonyTalk 13:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
TAnthony, since you're so intent on WP:Wikilawyering, you should at least make sure that you use the correct definitions: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. What you stated above is The three-revert rule. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, I've looked at both WP:COLOR and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and I can't find the "four WCAG accessibility criteria" you claim are being violated. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The colour accessibility guidelines are designed to make things easier to read for everybody, yet we have multiple people independently saying that the white text (which "fails" the guidelines) is easier to read than the black text (which "passes") and nobody is claiming otherwise (TAnthony has never stated which they find easier to read, only that an external tool deems black to be more accessible; Mackensen hasn't commented either way). We should be attempting to understand why that is and how to ensure that going forwards there isn't a disconnect between what a tool says is accessible and what humans say is accessible. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that simply reverting is not it and nor is wikilawyering or shouting that you cannot be wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should keep the more widely-accepted colour scheme (white text on a turquoise background). I just don't see how it could possibly be hard for others to read. Plus TAnthony only insists on changing the colour scheme on the Docklands Light Railway rolling stock, and the official DLR colours are white text on a turquoise background, not black. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 14:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't find it hard to read, but my eyesight is excellent. Let's take a step back and explain color contrast. The purpose of color contrast accessibility guidelines is to ensure that text is readable for people who have poor eyesight, and for whom certain contrast combinations are a problem. My profession is web development; ensuring that the websites I maintain are accessible is a core part of my professional responsibilities. In this case, the combination of white and DLR teal is a real problem for people who trouble with low contrast. Here's the result from the WebAIM contrast checker: [1]. Realistically you want to aim for passing WCAG 2.0 AA contrast; AAA contrast is a real challenge. People who can't read text that passes AA are probably just browsing the web in black-and-white; I know people who have to do that. As you can see, the combination of DLR teal and white fails AA and AAA contrast. I realize that for a person with normal eyesight this is perhaps counterintuitive; the text appears perfectly distinguishable to you. For someone with poor eyesight, it's probably unreadable, or a strain, and that's a problem. Now, compare with using black: [2]. Much higher contrast. Visually it's less appealing to my eyes, but I can still read it, and more importantly, so can someone who has vision problems. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The white text/turquoise background colour scheme which TAnthony insists on changing is used only on the heading of the page Docklands Light Railway rolling stock, and only says the exact words of the title. Even if people with poor eyesight can't read the heading, you of course have the big title at the top of each article which has black text and no background. I'm 100% sure it won't turn into such a huge disaster if someone can't read only what the article heading says. TAnthony is just acting like it's urgent that the colour scheme be changed. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 14:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Comments by other users from Talk:Docklands Light Railway rolling stock#Infobox color:
  • +1 to the "easier to read" camp - The black on light blue/turquoise makes it harder to read, Meeting ACCESSIBILITY is great and should be encouraged however COMMON SENSE must also be used and our readers also must be able to read the bloody text!, I'd rather our readers be able to read the text than to meet ACCESSIBILITY. –Davey2010Talk 10:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    I certainly find white on DLR easier to read than black on DLR. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Folks, I realize you all mean well, but what you're effectively saying is that it's okay to deliberately deliver a degraded experience to someone with poor eyesight. What's more, they'll know that's the case. Accessibility is important, it's a guideline, and in some contexts a legal requirement. If this were a purely decorative element that would be one thing, but it's not. Departing from the accessibility guidelines on purely aesthetic grounds privileges the sighted experience and should be avoided. I won't belabor the point, but I'm opposed to doing that and I support the change TAnthony proposes. Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Mackensen So if the guideline said the red background with blue text was fine would we use it ? ... Obvious answer is no!, We need to help our visually impaired readers I 110% agree on that however our normal-sighted readers also need to read the text, Unfortunately we can't please everyone although if we can please both I would happily go that route. –Davey2010Talk 15:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The interesting thing about your hypothetical is that I was able to read it (before someone removed the markup), but someone with eyesight problems probably couldn't have. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Mackensen You certainly have much better eyesight than me then!, I couldn't read it unless my face was up to the screen and even then it was doing my eyes in!, Yeah sorry I ended up removing it too lol. –Davey2010Talk 15:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mackensen: If this were a purely decorative element that would be one thing, but it's not. The title caption at the top of the page which TAnthony persistently has a problem with is a purely decorative element, hence why it's been formatted that way! This is some type of British vs American dispute. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 15:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know where TAnthony hails from and I don't see what nationality has to do with it. The British government endorses WCAG 2.1 AA compliance, which is what we're discussing here. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with Mackensen's helpful explanations above. WP:COLOURWAR would seem to be the guiding article here. It ends by saying that "colour contrast is of particular importance to people with poor vision, including those who are colourblind. Please preserve the accessibility of Wikipedia, per the colour guideline." Those last two links lead to a prohibition notice suggesting this discussion is not about loose guidelines; and to instructions unhelpfully titled "guidelines". They remind us that "some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind or visually impaired. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". So I read this as saying AAA is the level to aim at. The Snook tool linked to shows that the WCAG determination for this particular discussion are non-compliant at AA and AAA for white text, and fully-compliant for black text. Why this is I do not know: I am not an expert on colour contrast for people with visual impairments and am fortunate in being able, like most of the population, to distinguish colours. I assume that the WCAG guidelines were drawn up by people who are expert, either because it's a field they have studied to become competent to give advice and instruction; or because they have to navigate a world where others decide without first-hand experience of a visual disability what looks right or not. There's an obligation, then, to either change the text color to black, easily and feasibly meeting the AAA requirement; or pick another background colour which fits with white text for AAA compliance. (For the latter, fiddling with the Snook tool and referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors suggests a compliant background is going to be quite a bit darker.) The same applies to any other DLR-"branded" article, although I would not be first in the queue to make alterations if doing so resulted in reversion and another discussion like this. Bazza (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is to avoid further reversions and the need for more discussions (the exact reason I called for discussion in my only revert). I fully understand and agree with the point of accessibility - the issue here is not just that the white text is fine for us, but that it is actually easier to read than the black text is - at least for me (I have good but not perfect eyesight) and a couple of others who have commented. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I think we should move on from this and leave the article as it is, right? C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 15:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We can't use white text on the current blue background because some people with poor eyesight can't read it. We can't use black text on the current blue background because people with good eyesight can't read it. Then isn't the answer obvious? Use white text on a darker shade of blue (same hue but different lightness and/or saturation) and find a combination that passes the AA test. -- Dr Greg  talk  15:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If TAnthony constantly has a problem with the current colour scheme, then I agree with Dr Greg's proposal. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 15:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any problem reading the black text version. For a compliant white-text version, then the lightest AAA background for white text column at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors shows the lightest options available for the chosen colour. (And I note that other people as well as TAnthony, me included, have a problem with the current scheme not being compliant with Wikipedia's own requirements.) Bazza (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The black text version is still inconsistent with the official DLR colour scheme! If you, TAnthony have a problem with the current scheme then i think darkening the background colour is the better option. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 17:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
And btw, the title bar in the top right is supposed to be a decorative element, there is of course the main title at the top with no background colour so I really don't see why its urgent that the colour scheme be changed immediately. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 17:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
title bar in the top right is supposed to be a decorative element Perhaps so, but nothing in the markup makes it so. This is a side issue, but the title of the infobox poses semantic problems as it's just a table cell. That's a problem with {{Infobox train}} and not directly germane here, but if the intention is that the title bar is decorative, that's not how it's actually presented on the page and (at present) a good reason for not addressing the problem. To put it another way: someone with contrast problems won't know it's decorative, they'll just know that there's text in a prominent place that they can't read very well. And to be clear, I also think that the colors need to be changed. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mackensen: Still, what about the main title that you see at the top of literally every page?? That literally has no background that should cause accessibility problems for some users. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 17:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. The concept in accessibility is that of equivalence. A blind user cannot view an image, so we provide alternative text describing it. For purely decorative images, the pattern is to provide empty alt text (""), as opposed to not setting it at all. That tells a blind user with a screen reader that the image is a purely decorative element for the benefit of a sighted user and not relevant semantically. For a user with contrast issues (and who is probably not using a screen reader) it is not obvious that the text at the top of an infobox is a purely decorative element, and frankly I'm not sure that it is. Yes, it repeats the main title text, but you only know that if your visual acuity is such that you can read it. It's also not a given, though true in this instance, that the text of the infobox will match the main title text (it almost never does for railway stations, for example). To circle back to the main point, there is no equivalence here. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mackensen: Thanks for clarifying. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 18:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Any chance you could live with the following?
Docklands Light Railway rolling stock
That retains the official colour scheme and provides WCAG AAA contrast. If you don't like black, how does this look?
Docklands Light Railway rolling stock
That's the lightest value of that hue that passes WCAG AAA contrast. For what it's worth, I have difficulty reading the current white-on-teal used in Docklands Light Railway rolling stock. Black-on-teal is better, but still not great with my eyesight. --RexxS (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the bottom one looks good, matches well with DLR colours. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 18:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion but IMHO that's still no better, Maybe the background here should be removed entirely that way we solve both problems ?. –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Davey2010, if you mean swapping the two different background colours on the bottom example, changing it completely to the darker shade, that will be a good idea. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 18:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I meant removing the original background colour from the infobox, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I would certainly support removing the 2nd background (ie having it like this), –Davey2010Talk 18:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I agree. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 18:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
At a glance,  #00645F  looks closer to the original (ca.2000) Tramlink green than DLR teal. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with what AlgaeGraphix has stated above. That is nowhere near the official Tramlink colours, which are much brighter. IMO that actually looks a lot more like the original 1993-2003 DLR colour scheme. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 05:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that looks like the original DLR colours far more than the much greener Tramlink colour. Would it be possible though to have the current DLR colours either side of black-on-white text? If so that would I assume be legible and show the official colour in a manner similar to the 'tramlines' on the map? Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what you mean by have the current DLR colours either side of black-on-white text. Do you mean making it like the bottom example showed by RexxS? C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 08:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
No, like the centre section of line boxes, e.g.
{{s-start}}
{{s-line|system=DLR|line=DLR}}
{{s-end}}
I personally think it would look a bit odd having two colours as part of the title bar, I support what Davey2010 suggested above (darkening the background colour, as per this diff). Plus, I'm not sure if it would even be technically possible to have the infobox title background multi-coloured. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 09:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Technically, you can have as many colours as you want, even a rainbow if desired. Not that I think that's a good idea, of course, but you shouldn't worry about tech stopping you getting the best outcome that you decide on. But please try to make it meet WCAG AAA standard. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
RexxS so does my suggestion meet this requirement ?, If not is there some sort of tool that checks for instance text on backgrounds ? , If my suggestion fails this requirement then my next best suggestion is simply remove the background entirely, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
According to https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ my suggestion (#00645F) meets WCAG AA and WCAG AAA so unless there's another reason I'm unaware of I see no reason why the colour shouldn't be implemented ?. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
[3] agrees with that; so do I. Bazza (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, #00645F is the lightest value of that particular hue that meets WCAG AAA, which is why I used it in my second example earlier. If it is acceptable to everyone, I'd say go for it, as it's the simplest solution to achieve the accessibility goals. I certainly find it easier to read white text on that background. --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks RexxS, So Thryduulf, TAnthony, Mackensen AlgaeGraphix do you all agree with this colour being used instead?,

This colour meets WCAG AAA but wanted to ask yous before implementing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Great compromise guys.— TAnthonyTalk 04:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with using that colour. [4] C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 05:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm OK with that as long as the change is made everywhere relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Thryduulf that the colour change should be made everywhere where the DLR colour scheme is used. The easiest way to do so is to edit the template DLR color. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 14:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all, I've gone ahead and changed the DLR colour template colour to 00645F, Great to see everyone working together and reaching a consensus so thanks all, –Davey2010Talk 14:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox GB station

This templates for discussion listing has resulted in a merge of GB station, UK disused and UK heritage to Infobox station, with future discussions to be held on TfL stations and the various other local templates. You may find the first converted example at Bristol Temple Meads railway station, which can be used as a guide for other UK stations. Cards84664 16:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I assume then that you will convert every other infobox. I also note that you have removed all the historical traffic figures. The reason given for the merger was to standardise the parameters, you seem to have just decided that you will completely change what the infobox displays. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The TFD agreed a merge, it didn't say that {{Infobox station}} couldn't be edited to support the other pararmeters requested e.g. gridref and passenger usage which I beleive ProcrastinatingReader is working on and from the discussion at Template talk:Infobox station I think they will be incorporated. Cards84664 I think you might have been a bit premature in changing Bristol Temple Meads until the work on merging the templates has been completed. Would you consider self-reverting until such time as the merger is complete? Nthep (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I've been writing up a section regarding parameters and other matters relating to the merge. Template_talk:Infobox_station#UK_stations_merge. I agree with Mattbuck that there are matters still to be discussed. In the meantime, my opinion would be no changes in mainspace be made individually. Once the templates are ready, a bot run will make the changes across the mainspace. As always with merges, there's no hurry, and no changes should be made until we're happy with the result (or at least until we're sure that there will be no surprises). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: and @Nthep:, I've put mine at User:Cards84664/sandbox5. Cards84664 17:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: My questions at the TfD were not answered before the TfD was closed, so I shall repeat them here.
  1. Are the nominated infoboxes broken in some way, or are they no longer capable of performing the work for which they were designed?
  2. Why has {{Infobox London station}} not been included in the bundle? There is much more in common between that and {{Infobox GB station}} than between the latter and {{Infobox station}}, and there are occasions when the GB one is replaced by the London one (example), but I know of no situation where it was necessary to replace any of the GB ones with the generic one.
  3. Where may I find demonstration conversions of a disused station and of a heritage station?
  4. Why were relevant WikiProjects not consulted before the TfD was raised? Perhaps if a suggestion like this had been posted at WT:UKRAIL, WT:STATIONS or WT:RAIL, then some sort of routemap could have been carefully worked out amongst the parties who will be most directly affected: the people who use these templates frequently.
To those I will add:
  2. Can you promise that no functionality will be lost, and that there will be no adverse effects?
I continue to await your answers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't really know how to answer the first four, in the sense that I'm not sure how my answers to them can help discussion. For the first two, I made a nomination based on what I felt were appropriate reasons for the templates to be merged. {{Infobox London station}} has a bunch of niche params and bundling it in that nomination would not have been appropriate (indeed, at a glance I'm not sure if it's appropriate for merge at all, but even if it were it would deserve its own nomination). I'm not trying to go around search-and-destroying templates for no reason; these particular templates had genuine reasons for merge imo. No, they're not 'broken' per se, but almost all templates which get merged at TfD aren't broken. But I believe the four reasons I mentioned for merge in the TfD are good reasons for a merge. And as a sidenote, I do think {{Infobox station}} (and hence, almost every station article we have) could benefit from the combined efforts of the various maintainers of the individual templates.
For Q4 and Q5, see discussion here, where everyone's comments would be greatly appreciated to achieve a good merge. You'll find my notes there are reasonably thorough (but not yet complete) on merge considerations I've identified so far. I can promise that for my part I'm not going to try surprise people by attempting to shove a bad or sloppy merge through the backdoor. Obviously I'm only one editor, so if consensus is against the introduction of a new parameter or such then I can't do much about that, but I do hope every point will be raised for due consideration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I note that nearly all the objections were from people who deal with these templates, nearly all supports were from people who don't, that specific questions were unanswered or handwaved away with "this is solvable" with no attempt to explain how or why solving it is better than the status quo. Are we sure that this closure actually represents consensus? Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

No. See also my post at WT:WSS#"Get rid of stub tags"?. I expect that we'll be told "WP:DRV is thataway". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I assume both you know where it is, so yes? Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Stonehaven train crash

Heads-up! There has been a train crash near Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire. Judging by the number of ambulances in attendance, it may involve a passenger train. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We now have the Stonehaven derailment article. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Mergewatch

Can people please watch merges that are being proposed under the scope of this WikiProject by Jh15s via Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#MERGE REQUESTS. In particular watch this one: Talk:Liverpool Overhead Railway#Merger proposal. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Such discussions should be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts#MRG within 24 hours, so you can put that page on your watchlists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Should as per Talk:Dingle railway station#Merger_proposal, albeit that was me backing it out has barfed up that one. Happy days.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Merseyside tunnel name

Can any Quail twitchers or others please tell me names of the tunnel on the Garston and Liverpool Railway line between Brunswick railway station and St Michaels railway station. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Dingle Tunnel (1082 yards) in both 2nd edition and 3rd. Nempnet (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the ORR usage data

According to the ORR website, there was an error with the source data which has affected a number of stations, mainly in Wales and the north of England and resulted in an overestimation of usage. Both the 2018/19 and 2017/18 data has been affected so someone (or multiple people) will need to go over all 2000+ stations to check if data is correct. It is hard to tell how many stations were affected or which stations they were so it may be best to unfortunately go over the whole lot. see here. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty simple to compare old to new if someone's got the old spreadsheet handy. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah but it is just tedious going through the lot to correct them. I'm currently at Alsager at the moment. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 16:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Here is the shortcut to the spreadsheet. I am going to try finishing A at least. Could someone please start doing B onwards? Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
My time is limited, so I am doing the short ones; I have completed I and J. The joy of all things (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
ORR Updates - tick when done
Letter Complete? Letter Complete?
A checkY M checkY
B checkY N checkY
C checkY O checkY
D checkY P checkY
E checkY Q checkY
F checkY R checkY
G checkY S checkY
H checkY T checkY
I checkY U checkY
J checkY V checkY
K checkY W checkY
L checkY Y checkY

I suppose I don't need to say, also check the interchange data if it has been included in the article. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please help if you can with this! Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The error in these stats is about 12.5%; in the letter N, 14 needed changing out of 89. This is quite time consuming, if you can help, please do. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Have managed to get a couple done today, will see if I can do at least one more tonight, but I've noticed so far that a lot of the stations (but not exclusively) that have incorrect figures seem to be those based in Wales. TC60054 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I got plenty of time on my hands. I think I can finish this task off today. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
All done. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. That's been a great help. The joy of all things (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sammy the Shunter AfD

Sammy the Shunter has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Help identifying a station

?

Any ideas on which station this could be? I believe it is an LBSCR station (based on the valance) in the London area and the two-word station name is spelt out in stones although is not readable. Could it be Mitcham Junction which had a similar style of footbridge and valance (see image here? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it is; the chimneys in the background look like those of Croydon B Power Station, which was close to Waddon Marsh station. The embankment on the right was dug away and replaced with a fence when the Tramlink stop was built alongside. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The unit is a former South Tyneside 2-EPB, these were based at Selhurst. No. 2 headcode covers several routes, mostly on the Central Division, and mostly of around eight miles or less:
  • Redhill and Reigate (shuttle)
  • Horsted Keynes and Brighton
  • Three Bridges and Horsham
  • Polegate and Eastbourne
  • London Bridge and Victoria via South London line
  • West Croydon and Wimbledon via Mitcham Jc
  • Purley and Tattenham Corner (shuttle)
  • Charing Cross and Cannon Street
Mitcham Junction is therefore a distinct possibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks a good bet: [5], particularly [6]. Bazza (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks to all for your help. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Public consensus regarding my diagrams

Hi, i'd like a consensus on whether or not my diagrams should be removed from Wikipedia. I've had a few IP users revert some edits i made to some pages and removing my diagrams stating that they are unfit for use on a professional site like here, i did remove all my diagrams twice, both times being reverted by Davey2010 and he asked me to ask for a consensus, so are my diagrams allowed on this site or not? WestRail642fan (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

They should remain as per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_47#Removal_of_diagrams?, Worth noting WR threw his toys out the pram back in April too. –Davey2010Talk 00:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thing to note WestRail642fan, is that while you created those diagrams, once they were uploaded here they ceased to be exclusively yours. You cannot arbitrarily decide that you do or do not want them on here.
My general feeling on them is that they are handy to have, but excessively used. It's helpful to have a diagram of the train, but we don't need a diagram in the article for every livery variant ever created. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You say that the artical shouln't have every livery used, but have you seen the page for the British Rail Class 319? That one also have every livery used and no one complained, so why are my edits getting called out for the same thing? WestRail642fan (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
WestRail642fan, I'm not calling you out at all on adding them, I'm saying you can't be the sole person who decides whether they are included or not, and certainly not as a fit of pique. I think those diagrams at British Rail Class 319 are too numerous, but whatever, it's not an article I watch beyond anti-vandalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd agree with Mattbuck, there's a really problem when a large number of diagram are excessively used on an article. There's probably little problem in creating as many as you like on commons unless there's a copyright problem on the livery. For me when I word on some older article and no eligible image of e.g. a locomotive exists then a diagram would be really useful. As might the track layouts for some stations. (And Inchicore Railway Works). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I really like the diagrams as they show off the livery of a train quite well - but I feel that having duplicated versions of the same unit just at different lengths is unnecessary i.e. British Rail Class 331 Too many of them in one article can be excessive and clutter an article, especially for people with smaller screens/devices. MOS:ACCIM This is especially notable with images with very minor changes between them - carriage lengths for example. WP:IMGDD
I do wonder if only showing the leading carriage/2 leading carriages instead of the entire train would look better? For very long trains, this would show off the train much better - and be more consistent if every livery image was identical.
I asked WestRail642fan on their talk page about this previously, but did not get a response. Turini2 (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. In most cases just a single carriage should be adequate. When it's not, the images should be stacked above each other so they don't become miniscule. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I also note that WestRail642fan tends not to use edit summaries when adding/removing images, which makes it hard to see what has changed without looking in the article. I did pointed this out to them on their talk page, and in my own edit summaries. Turini2 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If diagrams are thought to be helpful then let's use the best ones available rather than those created by a specific user. This should not, therefore, be a discussion about a single user's contribution. Replacing 'good' diagrams with 'less good' diagrams just because a particular individual contributed them is never the best way to proceed. Specifically, for a number of articles, better representations of the livery already existed prior to these contributions being imposed on the community and they have been removed leaving the reader with a worse idea of what the train "looks like" than previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.93.164.132 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete: The April 2020 discussion appears to have petered out into a nil-all draw rather then be an overwhelming consensus to retain, although there did appear to be a consensus at least to reduce the number. Perhaps editors need to be a bit more assertive and decide whether a Keep or a Delete to allow a consensus to be formed rather than sitting on the fence?
There isn't a need for every livery to shown, much like there isn't a need for every livery carried by the Airbus A380 to be shown, just a selection around the text. They appear to be WP:OR, particularly in the case of unbuilt stock like the British Rail Class 805 and British Rail Class 807, being based on how one editor is presuming they will look. Also goes against WP:NOTAGALLERY policy. Meirtout (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment: With regards to liveries that is primarily a Train Operating Company (TOC) item and not a Class type item unless the TOC is branding a specific type for a specific service. Any excessive ( WP:UNDUE ) use of liveries on a TOC page will require split to a subpage where lack of notability might lead to its deletion. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons given above. This is not a fansite. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete (more than one): More than one diagram per article page unless illustrating a significant change of shape, not simply additional carriages or a pantograph. Examples would be a Norris Type A Extra before and after conversion to saddletank, or an original SR Merchant Navy class versus the rebuilt non-streamlined version. Does not apply to diagrams part of mechanical parts of a design. One diagram can often be useful as can sometimes emphasis details not as apparent from photographs unless item is in photgraphic paint.Djm-leighpark (talk)

WestRail642fan - the main factor that determines the use of an image is quality. Who took the photo, or created the diagram, has absolutely nothing to do with the selection of the image. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

While this has died down, might i suggest two ideas: 1. Cut down the diagrams to just that of current liveries/branding and 2. Add a long image template to the longer images as per what i did with the APT-P diagram. I'm also electing to no longer uploading any more diagrams to common, nor am i supporting there use anywhere else on wikipedia anymore WestRail642fan (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with them, so long as they aren't excessive. G-13114 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
For those who didn't notice, we had a WP:PRAM situation over at Commons. The post from 1 September is particularly revealing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the bigger issue is being overlooked. Smaller issues such as having multiple variants of a diagram on a single page can be rectified, but the fact of the matter is that West's diagrams have been replaced multiple times by older and much less accurate diagrams. Furthermore, the reason tends to be in regards to the smaller pixel size, and not in regards to their accuracy or suitability. If the older diagrams which are badly proportioned can be posted on the majority of pages about trains in the United Kingdom, why can't these newer ones do the same? Seems like a double standard to me. - PennCentral9, 23:55 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Which diagrams are these? Can you provide examples? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The most recent example pertains to the Class 450. Here is the new diagram, and here is the old one. An IP user decided to revert the new one. PennCentral9, 19:02 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at a photo I have to say the one not done by WestRail642fan seems to be more accurate in the livery - it has the logos, the TOC name, the change from grey to black is over the correct window - but less so in the train details - the window shape looks better, the bogies are more accurate. The edit history for Class 450 is problematic, but it's hardly the first time an IP gets something into their head and repeatedly reverts. Neither party is looking good in terms of behaviour there. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

So, here's something i didn't bring up until now, but Engine Shed - South London reached to me awhile ago to ask to use my daigrams for some packs to help kids with autism/ADHD, they recently got back to me and showed me a picture of my diagrams as part of there packs WestRail642fan (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That's nice, but I don't see how it's relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
That has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Some help please

Would someone please help me to understand how to use the railway lines template? I have been looking at List of Northern Trains routes and realising that some of the latter routes are missing line templates and that some other routes need to be merged according to the July timetables. I have tried geting it to work on my own sandbox but I can't seem to get it. --Exodus662 (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Exodus662: - checking your contributions I see no evidence of you working in your sandbox, but this might mean you've only previewed work and not saved an edit. What routes are missing line templates? Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mjroots: - That is the case. Some of the latter routes (route 14 onwards) have no line templates. Some (routes 1, 2, 4 and part of 5) also need merging as of the new timetables. --Exodus662 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I see the templates are done in the new style format which I find very difficult to construct diagrams with. Pinging Headbomb, who is proficient in them and may be able to create the missing diagrams for you. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Not proficient in them at all, as I have never used them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean these types of diagrams, using Template:Routemap? Happy to help, within reason and timescale! Bazza (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm unsure if this article breaches WP:NOTTIMETABLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it does, which it shouldn't. Bazza (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bazza: Sorry, I had problems accessing my Wikipedia account recently. I would like to take you up on your offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus662 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Bazza 7 for Exodus662 as the one above won't have worked. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) 20:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Stonehaven derailment

A discussion re criticism of reporting of the Stonehaven derailment is taking place at talk:Stonehaven derailment#Rail magazine. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ashorne Hall Railway

This is only tangentially a railway question, but I thought project members may be able to help. I recently wrote this, Ashorne Hill House. I came across this article [7] which refers to Ashorne Hall, but talks of the property being bought by Arthur Tree in 1892, when he did indeed buy the Ashorne Hill estate, subsequently building Ashorne Hill House between 1895-97. So, my question is are Ashorne Hall and Ashorne Hill House the same place, and the location of the miniature railway, or is Ashorne Hall another, presumably pretty proximate, house? Any advice/information gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ashorne Hall is about 300 metres to the east of Ashorne Hill House. If you click on the coordinates you will get a geo-hack page, click on OS Maps and it will show you both buildings. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, I'm still not seeing it. Ashorne House Farm to the west and Wiggerland Farm to the east. But Ashorne Hall? KJP1 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@KJP1: Ashorne Hill House grid ref SP 308 585, Ashorne Hall grid ref SP 312 586. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah! - I just wasn’t expanding the map enough. Many thanks to you both. KJP1 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy Hosking

I observe admin & oversighter Jeremy Hosking{See below for mistake here Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)) has completely removed Jeremy Hosking's associatation with Railway; apart from the now unsupported categpry Category:British people associated with Heritage Railways. This isn't something I particularly follow but to my best understandning Hoskings has and perhaps does have an impact in the railway sector. Can anyone with more specific information check this out. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: There is no such user as Jeremy Hosking, and moreover, never has been - so they cannot be an admin, let alone an oversighter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear that Djm-leighpark refers to the article Jeremy Hosking rather than the user, and presumably to this edit by Primefac. This removed a lot of unsourced material, in line with WP:BLP. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I'm really not at my best at the moment, I had a close family member funeral yesterday. But sourced material was removed ... and there are no sources supporting the steam locomotives ownership in the lede. Apologies to Primefac for not notifying here, and thanks Voice of Clam for picking it up. To my best understanding, Hosking is fairly involved with the Hornby site and up at Crewe and elsewhere via a number of companies and it might be useful if it was picked up. Redrose64 do you or anyone have access to the "Steam Raiwlay, page 10, September 2016" reference that was removed .. which was probably "Steam Railway Magazine" with a minor typo? Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Whilst Primefac (talk · contribs) is indeed an administrator and oversighter (and also a bureaucrat), they did not need to wear any of those hats to make the edit concerned, which could have been done by anybody - even somebody who was not logged in, because the article Jeremy Hosking has never been protected. Its history also shows no evidence that oversight has ever been used on that page - an oversighted edit would have the "cur" and "prev" links greyed out, together with the radiobutton for the "Compare selected revisions" feature; and the timestamp would be greyed, struck through and also italicised. None of the entries in the page history exhibit any of those distinguishing marks; by way of example, go to this page's history and examine the edit made by 144.121.121.100 on 14 November 2019‎ - that edit was oversighted.
I don't have that magazine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
As I said on the talk page, I removed unsourced content, that is all, and per the above comments I did so only as an editor and not as an administrator or functionary. If there are reliable sources that support any of the information I removed, I have no issue with it being restored. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
@Primefac: your edit also removed a lot of sourced material. I suggest that we go back the the version of the article before your edit, and have another go, this time only removing the actual unsourced material. By all means flag up any sources deemed unreliable and these can be discussed. I might be able to assist with that Steam Railway reference. Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough; I forgot that I removed the campaign contributions because I felt they were trivia and not needed in the article. That was a slightly BOLD move and I am not opposed to being reverted on that. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Common category rename

There is a proposal to rename Category:Panoramas of train stations in the United Kingfom (sic) on Commons. Comments on the talk page please. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Voice of Clam ping me in seven days and I'll close it. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Pinging mattbuck as above. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Cites

Recently there have been spot fires flaring up on multiple UK railway articles of the need for cites and what are and aren't acceptable. Thought it might be timely to have a centralised discussion so the issues can be discussed.

The core policy is Verifiability. Basically for anything to be added it needs to be backed up by a reliable source.

These are two types of sources; those classified as reliable sources and can be used, and those that are classified as self published and can't be used.

Sources that can be used as cites

Sources that cannot be used as cites

I'm sure there are other examples that people may want to add or discuss. Metro140 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting post. Whilst I understand that personal observation is not permitted (and social media often means other people's personal observation) there is an awful lot of interesting stuff that has to be left out. One source I have recently acquired and used is a CD of Ipswich Transport Society Journals and a lot of the rail content there is based on personal observations by others at the time. An example "40xxx and 40xxx have both been recently observed on Mistley ammunition trains". I know the ITS has many rail employees and has a great in depth knowledge of the rail scene. Could I use this (and other entries) to justify adding "During the mid-1970s ammunition trains worked tp Mistley Quay" in the Mistley railway station entry? --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm always concerned by the lack of citations in articles for modern train operating companies and rolling stock. These often seem to be trying to be more up to date than the enthusiast press. To compound this, I often see lists of rolling stock changed but leaving the original citation; if the details change then the citation needs to be replaced. For historic information it doesn't seem to be such a great problem and I'm more tolerant of self-reported information that has been printed in old journals provided we take reasonable care to check that it isn't refuted or corrected in a later edition or book. Geof Sheppard (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You beat me to it Geof, I was making a similar point and got an edit conflict, so put me down as a +1. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
As much as social media etc. is frowned upon as RSs, I don't see why photographs of something (that can be found by searching and/or linked tom in a non-ephemeral manner) cannot be used as citeable evidence of something. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Would depend on the particular image, a judgement would have to be made as to whether it shows what it purports to. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Twitter may be useable in some circumstances, especially where official rail industry accounts are involved. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
It all depends what it is. I'd say for saying "we now have this new unit" then probably ok, but "look at our stats" not so much. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
As a recent example, see Talk:Pacer (British Rail)#Northern Trains; notifying Maurice Oly and Neith-Nabu. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed - a perfect case of valid use of a non-POV statement by a train operator on their official Twitter account being used as a valid source to ensure that information on Wikipedia is up to date and accurate being incorrectly flagged up. Neith-Nabu (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say that verified Twitter accounts used by TOC should be allowed as a source but as a very last resort I.E. when no other news outlets cover something.

I use Manchester united football ground railway station as an example, services there were suspended in 2018 due to health and safety concerns. How do we know this? Because Northern was asked on Twitter about it and said that was the reason why would they make up as reason as the only TOC serving that station only they would know why services were suspended.

Without Twitter we would not able to confirm why services had been suspended.

I understand that anybody could claim anything on Twitter, but I feel like as a last resort when no other sources are available verified Twitter accounts used by TOC should be allowed. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Problem with many of these lists is that they are a hotchpotch of old and new, cited and uncited information. Re Geof Sheppard's point there is the ability to reset by using published lists that cover entire classes or TOC fleets, e.g. the annual publications from Platform 5. But then as soon as somebody makes a change, the integrity falls apart.
Ultimately many things originate from a personal observation, but if reported in a reputable publication, there will be editorial controls in place to try and minimise inaccurate reporting. In answer to Davidvaughanwells' question, inhouse journals like that of the Ipswich Transport Society are probably ok as there is an editor to exercise control.
The problem is more with social media and internet forums is that anybody can anonymously write any 'man at the pub told me' tosh and there is no vetting process. The problem with accepting Official Twitter accounts as reliable sources, is where do you draw the line? Plenty of accounts that claim to be official accounts of organisations and people turn out to be fake. Metro140 (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
On transport society etc. publications/in-house journals: I would have no hesitation about using such publications, and indeed I have done in the past. I write regularly for one myself (a relatively niche one), and can confirm that there is stringent editorial oversight by an overall editor (I am the editor of one section). Similar publications I know of, from a range of societies in southeast England, have similar levels of integrity. If the publication has an ISSN, even better. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Metro140: I would define official Twitter acconts as acconts with the blue checkmark aka twitter verified accounts for example @Northernassist etc. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Metro140: Maurice Oly (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Template problem

Updating usage stats with the publication today of the ORR 2019/20 figures, I find articles that use the "Infobox London station" template don't display the 2019/20 figures, though I've added the new figures in the same way as usual, and hidden the oldest ones. I've done Morden South railway station and Mortlake railway station so far, with the same results. I don't pretend to understand how to edit templates, if that's where the problem lies... Stations outside London that use a different infobox template don't have this problem. Johnlp (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I can fix this, just as I have done each year for some time now; but I don't see the point because you-know-who appears to be intent on destroying {{infobox London station}} just like {{infobox GB station}} and others. The whole business has got me down, severely, and my heart just isn't in it any more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I can see what needs to be done here, which is to add the code for the 2019/20 stats to the Infobox London station template, but I wouldn't trust myself to do it. Maybe I'll feel braver tomorrow. Johnlp (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Different template problem

Second problem. Attempting to add interchange stats where none have been recorded before produces a problem at Motherwell railway station. Where interchange stats have been recorded before (eg Morpeth railway station), there is no difficulty. I can't see what is different about Motherwell. Johnlp (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This problem is unrelated to the post above, because Motherwell doesn't use {{infobox London station}} - it used {{infobox GB station}}, and whilst I would have helped (indeed, fixed it) in the past, the article now uses {{infobox station}} and I no longer have the desire to do so, all the pleasure has been taken away from me. I've unwatched hundreds of articles, even though there have been a large number of recent bad edits, because I simply can no longer be bothered to check the edits of various IPs and newbies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The issue is {{pad=2em}}. It should be {{pad|2em}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Johnlp (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Old usage stats

With the latest updates of stats, I've noticed that when AnomieBOT changed the station infobox template recently, stats from more than five years ago, which were previously commented out with <!-- -->, have been removed (e.g. [8]). Was there agreement to do this? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Cards84664 20:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Deprecated / non-visible parameters are usually removed as a matter of content (see various deprecation bots like PrimeBOT task 30). There's not really any way to retain them in the substitution. If that data is still needed for some reason, it's in the history of the article I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry to see the historic usage figures simply discarded: I for one find them interesting. It would surely be possible to retain them within the new template simply by putting <!-- --> around the years being put in the background, and then doing the annual update as it's been done over many years. Johnlp (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
While on this subject, are stats supposed to be round up to the nearest thousand? For example, if a station had 760,952 entries and exits is it displayed as 0.760 or 0.761? I’ve seen the latter on some articles. SK2242 (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Unless below 100,000, in which case the full figure is used. Johnlp (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

UK Railway figures 2019-20

Hi. Having gone through over 2,560 UK railway station articles in the last week, Wrenbury railway station was the last station I needed to update the railway figures for. Thanks to everyone who has helped with this tedious task this year. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Just spitballing, and to link in with your comments on historical data above, why do we show last 5 years in the infobox? eg: why not pop all the historical data onto Wikidata, show only the latest year's data in the infobox, and then have a line graph / bar chart somewhere else in the article (also fetching data from Wikidata) with historical data? Some very, very rough examples of what I mean: User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox4. [advantage of wikidata is, aside from representing the data better technically, it'd allow other projects to use it too] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Bear in mind that any solution would have to take into account situations like Norton Bridge, which only display old data since it is now closed. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see what "problem" this would solve. I find it interesting to be able to see a trend in the infobox and also, on occasion, an exceptional event. Johnlp (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
There two separate things here. The wikidata part would save User:Pkbwcgs (and others) fingers from turning into bloody stumps every year as they plough through all 2,560 stations and update the data. They could simply upload all of it to Wikidata with one simple script. The graphs charts and status quo figures is a separate thing and should be treated as such. - X201 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

1995 Accident at Bognor Regis

I've added a couple of accidents to the Bognor Regis station article. A search of the Railways Archive reveals a 1995 accident. Further searching reveals 4CIG 1710 collided with the signal box. Not sure that website is useable as a reference though. Can anyone come up with a better source please? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a British Newspaper Archive subsription at the moment, but if anyone here does there are a couple of articles about it in these search results. You can see from the article previews that it was an unmanned runaway but you need to pay if you want to see more than that. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 18:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rolling stock year standard format

So I want to check with everybody here how we should format rolling stock tables for TOCs in terms of year built as a standard, I noticed this issue while I was formatting tables last night.

Examples of how we could format tables in terms of train build dates are:

1975-1985 1975-85

Those two dates are random and just examples of formatting, but they show how I think we could format tables in terms of rolling stock year build dates in terms of a standard format.

I look forward to hearing editors input on this matter. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Follow the Manual of Style: MOS:DATERANGE. The preference there is 1975–1985, using four-digit years and en-dashes. Bazza (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bazza: ok thanks for making that clear. Maurice Oly (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Class 33

I've been a very good boy this year and Santa has rewarded me handsomely. I got a copy of Simon Lilley's new book on the Class 33s (Lilley, Simon (2020). The Class 33s A Sixty Year History. Manchester: Crécy Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978 191080 9662.). The article is in sore need of improvement, which I should be able to achieve using the book as a reference. As a first step towards this, is there any objection to converting exising book references to {{sfn}} format? Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Mind you I got Broderick, Nick; Bright, Thomas (2020). "Britain's Preserved Locomotives" (3 ed.). London: H Bauer. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) which is somewhat of a sourcing heaven for a certain subset, won't do a dirty diesel though. Surviving Covid-19 was a better present but hasn't improved my grammar/spelling.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Lock the class 332 page please

Dear all can the page on the class 332 please be locked to prevent Vandalism please. Maurice Oly (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Maurice Oly: This is the wrong venue.
  • If several different people are causing disruption on one page, the most appropriate noticeboard is WP:RFPP
  • If just one person is causing disruption (on one or more pages), the appropriate noticeboard is WP:AIV
  • If, as in this case, one person is repeatedly reverting (on one or more pages), the appropiate noticeboard is WP:ANEW
I noticed the violations of WP:3RR so blocked 66.44.26.32 (talk) without waiting for a report to be filed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I thank you for blocking IP address and I only came here due to not knowing where to go for this since this was my first time asking for a page to be locked.

Thank you for telling me where I should go in the future for issues like this. Maurice Oly (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I Like The british Rail Class 483's edits - what should be done?

The user has been making several edits to Railway related articles in the last few months. Unfortunately they have been riddled with poor spelling and grammar, add unneeded speculation and most of the time lack sources. I discussed this on their talk page last night but they appear to have ignored it and made several more edits this morning. SK2242 (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You posted (twice) on their talk page, supplementing two previous notices by bots; but there is no evidence that they replied (page history), so it's not yet a discussion. But you're right, their editing is very poor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_48&oldid=1107742485"