Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

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

Good article reassessment for Scott Special

Scott Special has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Railway lines category organization

Should Category:Railway lines be organized the same way as Category:Railway stations? That would mean creating {{Railway lines in countryname opened or closed in YYYY category header}} in a similar way to {{Railway stations in countryname opened or closed in YYYY category header}}. This would help further organize the railway lines into subcategories like "Railway lines in Germany opened in 1957". I hope this request makes sense. Thanks! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Does it need to be that specific? I would guess there's an order of magnitude more stations than there are lines. Taavi (talk!) 13:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you'll run into issues like lines being built and opened in phases over multiple years and cases where we have multiple articles for one line (eg an article on the historic line and one on the present day line, which may have been built by many different companies and at different times). Garuda3 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops that may be of interest to participants here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for BR Standard Class 7

BR Standard Class 7 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Name of VR Class Sr3

The article VR Class Sr3 breaks the naming scheme that's in use for Finnish locomotives (and for other countries AFAICS) as it's in use with two operators and not just VR. Is there any precedent on how to name articles in situations like this one? Taavi (talk!) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this the case with many rolling stock articles? A lot of German train type articles named DB (or DBAG) Class something something, while also being operated by different companies. Question, is it an issue though? I'd say it depends; who is the first operator or operates significant parts of the fleet; what do the sources call the locomotives? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a similar issue with the "British Rail Class..." articles. Some people object to articles being housed under these titles when the class in question was introduced after the demise of British Rail. The answer is that they are TOPS class numbers, and TOPS was introduced by British Rail. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

They do provide a consistency that allows for easy finding. If you know that the train that you're on is numbered 802104 and the one that just passed by the window is 220028, you can look these up as British Rail Class 802 and British Rail Class 220 respectively, and you don't need to know which train operator presently leases them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Big Four Bridge

Big Four Bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

CalHSR

Some eyes with expertise in transit funding would be appreciated at Talk:California High-Speed Rail#DracaenaGuianensis as this seems like a rather sticky dispute over what it means for a project to be "funded". Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Yüksek Hızlı Tren

An article that you have been involved in editing—Yüksek Hızlı Tren—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"In Fiction" Segments focused on Thomas & Friends Characters

I frequently see examples on various locomotive pages of "In Fiction" segments with brief one or two sentence blurbs dedicated to characters from Thomas & Friends, one example I just stumbled across was at the end of the Climax locomotive article.

I certainly am not opposed to mentioning major characters in the Railway Series and their respective real life counterparts where there is sufficient source material to make the connection meaningful (for example the Talyllyn Railway locomotives were such blatant inspirations for the Skarloey locomotives, and the fictional influence of the Skarloey has played a real role in the preservation of the Talyllyn with regular Awdry themed events ongoing on the line to the day). However in cases such as the Climax locomotive I pointed out above, it seems the characters mentioned are obscure and can't really add anything meaningful beyond just one or two sentences that sum up as "This locomotive was in Thomas & Friends, his name was Jeff." Considering how common this is on many pages of locomotives with seemingly little relevant information between the fictional counterpart and the real machines; can there be a standard of relevancy to mark the difference between "hey the only reason people know what an LBSCR E2 is anymore IS because of Thomas so we better explain that connection" vs. this practice of non-relevant blurbs naming secondary characters with no relevance beyond the fact the character just exists? I don't want locomotive pages cluttered by trivial segments if there isn't enough sources to establish the fictional character's relevance relating back to the real machine. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless secondary sources have made the connection, I believe "in fiction" sections should be deleted entirely. The example you linked certainly isn't appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I am going to go with that mindset and be bold and just cut extraneous fictional sources when I see them. I removed the segment from the Climax page, and also cut a similar segment from Pennsylvania Railroad K4 class. I think the sniff test that works is as stated strong secondary sources, and I just don't see that bar being met by many of these offending examples. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Our policy on this is very clear (although mostly ignored). It requires secondary sources. In practice, this means that everything in the books (Rev W. Awdry and Christopher Awdry) is supported by the substantial books of commentary on the Thomas series from Brian Sibley The Thomas the Tank Engine Man and a couple of others. Also the commentaries by both George and Wilbert Awdry, The Island of Sodor: Its People, History and Railways and by Christopher Awdry Sodor: Reading Between the Lines on Wilbert's writing a generation earlier would qualify.

But the TV series? I know of nothing secondary on those. So the Fat Controller's railway is almost all covered, as are the Skarloey and Arlesdale railways, even Sodor itself (although WP has now deleted these articles anyway). The later, more international, content is where the problem lies. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a massive amount of Thomas the Tank Engine content on YouTube, some of it really quite in depth, but how much qualifies as reliable I have no idea (YouTube suggests far more of the content to me than I watch). Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Which era of Thomas is it referring to? Does it appear to meet WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The last video I watched covered every TV series and film but didn't mention (or at least not in any detail) the books at all. I didn't watch it with an eye to evaluating its reliability, but there were no glaring red flags (not that that specific video would likely have information relevant to Wikipedia). There is a wide variety of content out there though, with a very wide of purposes and differing reliability, so your question is similar to pointing at a large bookcase filled with an assortment of printed works that mention Thomas the Tank Engine at least once and asking "is that a reliable source?". No single answer is meaningful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Be careful about linking to stuff on youtube as it is very often copyvio. Call me the Fat Controller! 10mmsocket (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well the last video I watched had a lot of copyrighted content in it, but fair use would definitely apply as it was being used for critical commentary. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:1 Line (Sound Transit)

Could some of you have a look at the questions raised on Template talk:1 Line (Sound Transit)? Best, Sam Sailor 06:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Just one character needed to be trimmed. SounderBruce 07:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion potentially of interest to members

For info, there is currently a discussion ongoing at East Japan Railway Company regarding infobox captions whih may be of interest to project members. Danners430 (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Turkey

In a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCDD Subdivision 3 I said “I think there are too many articles about Turkish rail.” and @Thryduulf replied “The nominator disliking the number of articles on a topic is not a valid reason for deletion, but the subject being at present better covered in the parent article is a reason for a merge.” As this is a general thing rather than specific to that article I think I should explain further here (WP Turkey is only semi-active) and hopefully we will find we broadly agree.

I should probably have said that I think there are too many uncited (about 20 are tagged in https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources) articles and low-quality articles. I agree that merging can often be a good solution as I think editors are more likely to fix wrong info if it is part of an important article rather than in its own small unimportant article. So if any of you guys are interested in Turkey and feel like doing some merging that would be great. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

British Rail Class 555 move discussion

There is a move discussion ongoing at British Rail Class 555 to move the article to Tyne and Wear Metro Class 555 which I would appreciate input in, as it was originally moved without discussion. Thanks. Danners430 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Horten Station (1881-2007)#Requested move 14 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horten Station (1881-2007)#Requested move 14 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

High speed rail in Turkey

Only 2 people commented last year so it would be great to have more opinions.

An article that you have been involved in editing—Yüksek Hızlı Tren—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wolverine (train)#Requested move 23 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wolverine (train)#Requested move 23 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)