Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains
Get Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains essential facts below. View Videos or join the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains discussion. Add Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains
WikiProject Trains (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Station ridership: boarding and alighting

As I've been creating railway station articles, I've been using this dataset published by MLIT, a Japanese government agency. It gives the number of passengers getting on and off at most (if no all) stations in Japan. However, I've come across another dataset published by JR East (one of Japan's many rail operators), which gives the number of passengers that are boarding only. Take Shin-Urayasu Station for example: the JR East data for 2016 gives 55,729 passengers, which is cited in the article. Meanwhile, the MLIT dataset gives 109,912 passengers for the same year, which is roughly double of JR East's. I've found that there's a mix; some articles are reporting both boarding and alighting, while others are reporting just boarding. I've even found articles that have taken MLIT's numbers and just divided it by two. So, in the infobox of the articles, which number do we report?

Graywalls deleting info

It seems Graywalls is on a crusade against fancruft but some of it is valid information such as the utah rails refrences he removes than puts and deletes. Well some of it is trivia and should be deleted so maybe we can help graywalls understand the locomotives better and not delete stuff execpt for stuff that needs deleted -- (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Utah Rails has previously been discussed in the reliable sources noticeboard and so far the loose conclusion on that is that this website maybe considered reliable for things related to rail in Utah. Reliability for self published materials is determined by the author being considered as experts in the field by formally published materials, not by fans. There is also such thing as too much information. If the information is only covered in railfanning websites, I would consider that excess information of interest to only a narrow range of people and not suitable for encyclopedia. I'll ping @Mackensen: here as he's quite involved in this project. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there specific examples we can look at? Graywalls and I tend to agree that there's too much fancruft, though we draw the line differently and have differed on source reliability. An abstract discussion won't get us very far. Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Route diagram templates

Once again it's being proposed that they be subst'd into their parent articles. See Resource: Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 24#Template:Munich-Holzkirchen railway. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming of stations and Nanjing North

Hi all, there is a new station planned called Nanjing North railway station (source). How shall I go about naming the new article and the existing Nanjing North railway station article? I've had a quick look for other station articles in the same area with the same name, but haven't found any yet. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I presume they are two separate stations at separate locations both with the same name. We could disambiguate either by the company that opened the station, or by year of opening. There may be other (better?) methods of disambiguation. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
We do know the old station opened in 1914, though as the new station isn't built yet we don't know when that will open. We could say Nanjing North railway station (under construction)? I don't like that name but it could work until the new station is opened. NemesisAT (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@NemesisAT:, can you please add the |language= and |trans-title parameters to those reference in the article on the new station and fill them in? Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure no probs, I've just been using the auto-fill and web citation features in the editor up until now which doesn't offer these parameters but I'll try and remember to add them in in the future.NemesisAT (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, doing so provides some indication as to the veracity of the reference used. Not that I'm calling those used into the article into question. It also provides a little context. Mjroots (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Trains cannot be used inside Template:WikiProject banner shell with some parameters

It results in the page landing in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded.

You can see this in this old revision of Talk:Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard station, which was reverted with the this edit. The call to {{WikiProject Trains}} looks like this: {{WikiProject Trains |1= |class=Start |importance=low |NYPT=yes |NYPT-importance=mid |subway=yes |stations=yes}}

Even without the "shell" it has a template expansion depth of 37, which is right up against the limit of 40, as shown in the source-code view of the link to the reverted revision above. Search for Highest expansion depth: to find the parser profiling data. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem disappears if is removed, I suspect that the problem is with {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats}}. But I don't see why {{WikiProject banner shell}} needs to be used for just two banners.
BTW Template talk:WikiProject Trains would have been a better venue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AlgaeGraphix and mass moves of Panama metro stations

AlgaeGraphix moved all articles of Panama Metro Line 1 stations from convention Foo (Panama Metro) to Foo station. When I asked them whether they got consensus their answer was [1]. The edit summary says standartization of names, however, I do not believe this standartization can be in any way general - for example both Paris and Moscow use Foo (Paris Metro) scheme, and I do not think moving all stations of these systems to a different convention would be appropriate. I believe when I started to create articles on Panama Metro stations I asked for advise here, and the advise was that it does not matter much as soon as naming within the system is consistent, but Foo (Panama metro) would be fine. Before I start moving all these stations back, I would like to ask again whether this would be a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction: they were moved from Xxx (Panama Metro) to Xxx metro station for compatibility with the {{metro}} template (which is used on nearly 1,500 pages). A comparison with Paris and Moscow is not really valid, as those cities (along with London and New York) have very large networks that use their own specialized templates. Furthermore, a search of talk pages doesn't show any discussion about station naming for the system. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, YMBLanter, I created the first 11 and looked around and saw that the "Place (metro station)" format was common so used that and you rightly continued with that when you added the rest. Examples: Hallesches Tor (Berlin U-Bahn), Lavapiés (Madrid Metro), Battistini (Rome Metro). They should be moved back to the original article title. Valenciano (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Preemptive parenthetical disambiguation is deprecated and discouraged (see WP:PRECISION). WP:USSTATIONS and WP:UKSTATION represent current examples of best practices and these moves are in line with those principles. There was a recent move of all French mainline stations to X station, and also the trams stations in Bordeaux. No one tackled the Parisian metro stations yet but they clearly should be moved as well. Mackensen (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We also moved earlier last year Mexico City, but this was preceded by a RM, and we have now documented consensus. I would prefer to see a RM also in all other cases which require more than a few moves (Panama is about 30 and I would say qualifies). It could be a RM specifically for Panama, or may be it is easier to make a RM for all matro stations in the world. But I am not fine when I suddenly see twenty moves on my watchlist, and when I ask whether there is consensus for the move I get a response "Sorry, I did know I had to ask you".--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: There was no problem when I moved 69 stations in Oslo, nor 41 in Barcelona just four months ago, so I had no reason to expect a problem with 14 (not 20) in Panama.
Pinging editors who also participated in the above-referenced discussion: @Cocu15, Mattbuck, Some Gadget Geek, Tbhotch/EN, and Usernamekiran:. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Per Mackensen, these moves are common sense, and all the examples listed above will follow in these name changes. We can have more specific discussions per system if stations have the same name: X station (Paris), X station (Berlin), Y station. Cards84664 02:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not particularly care about the names, but it there is consensus surely it must be documented somewhere? Yes, we have WP:PRECISION, but a direct application would probably require Foo station rather than Foo metro station, and for some stations, such as Besòs Mar station, just Foo, because there are not other objects called Besòs Mar. And everybody has different common sense, I see Moscow metro articles, some of which are on my watchlist, being moved all around on a regular basis. If consensus is not documented but exists may be it should be documented?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
If there is no further feedback at this stage, I am going to open an RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Ymblanter, with what scope? The consensus in the past has been that a project-wide naming convention is inappropriate (I can dig up those discussions if you like, most were linked from here at some point). Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this would be great. If we have consensus at this point, may be we can draft a guideline, and then we do not need any further RFCs like the one I mentioned for Mexico needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Concerning the scope, I am only interested in rapid transit / metro / subway stations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Typically naming conventions are country-wide and comprehend both heavy rail and metro, given the substantial overlap. I think you'll find you can't do one without the other. Anyway, I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Merging naming conventions for stations is the last time a uniform approach was floated. I proposed a European convention last year but it didn't go anywhere. The most recent discussion targeting a metro system is probably the series of discussions that led to the adoption of USSTATIONS for the New York City Subway: Resource: WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention. The recent discussion of French stations at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/France and French-related articles#Naming of French railway station articles didn't address metro stations because the underlying concern was not WP:PRECISION but rather the use of French-language names (e.g. Gare de) that were not proper names. The uniform consensus was to adopt the "X station" name for heavy rail. When I later proposed to extend this to tram stops no one objected, and this was done in Bordeaux. Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the links. I agree that all stations used by any rail transport should be considered together. Here are my conclusions.
  1. There is no uniform pattern for naming stations, nor any desire or realistic possibility of creating one. Naming can be possibly made uniform for many articles, though there will be always exceptions.
  2. We need an information page collecting existing guidelines and practices. If such a page exists, I will appreciate if someone points it out. If not, I can create it myself.
  3. The existing guidelines, and certainly the existing practices are at variance with WP:PRECISION (I will elaborate on this in a second). This means that moves which only refer to PRECISION and otherwise do not elaborate the reasons are not appropriate.
  4. There is some room for standartizing names, but it should be done for certain groups of stations (within a country, or possibly even within a system), and preferably with RfC. I do not immediately see any consensus for Foo metro station, though indeed it is likely that this (with some variations) would be more acceptable than Foo (city metro).
  5. Mass moves in the absence of the explicit community consensus (such as RfC) are not really acceptable. Panama station must be moved back until the time RfC on Panama metro stations, or Panama stations (there are three more railway stations in the country) has been held.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Now, concerning WP:PRECISION. If I take a random example, Resource: Naming conventions (stations in Poland), and go to List of Warsaw Metro stations. Take Ratusz Arsena? metro station -- there is no object such as Ratusz Arsena?, in fact Ratusz means city hall in Polish, and refers to the City Hall of Warsaw, and Arsena? means a different building. Thus, if we literally apply PRECISION, the name of the article must be Ratusz Arsena?. (Note that there are countries -- I previously mentioned Russia -- where this is a common situation due to the grammar issues. For example, Biryulyovo-Tovarnaya can only refer to the station, unless someone opens a theater or whatever with this name, in which case it would be a derivative from the station). Furthermore, if we take Plac Wilsona metro station -- is is named after Wilson Square, for which we do not have an article, and once we have it, I do not know whether it would be Plac Wilsona or Wilson Square -- but even if it is Plac Wilsona, PRECISION mandates us to take the next option, which is Plac Wilsona station, since there are, no other stations with this name. This, this guideline is directly at variance with WP:PRECISION (which is a policy and part of WP:MOS). This happens all the time, I have seen a lot of contradictions within WP:MOS people feel very strongly about (I personally usually do not), but if all our guidelines contradict to PRECISION it is probably not such a good idea to use PRECISION as an argument for moving articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We actually have the article, Wilson Square, and my example is the same as Ratusz Arsena. Well, take another example -- M?ociny metro station, M?ociny exists (even if we do not have an article) and in fact gave its name to the station, M?ociny station would be unique.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Panama metro RfC open: Talk:24 de Diciembre (Panama Metro)#Requested move 24 January 2021--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ymblanter, WP:PRECISION does speak to natural disambiguation (its example is "Bothell, Washington", even though there are no other Bothells). That also goes to consistency between articles (cf WP:CRITERIA). Naturally disambiguating with X station doesn't offend WP:PRECISION in the way that parenthetical disambiguation does. Naming convention discussions often revolve around whether to use X station or X railway station or X metro station, with reference to local usage. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Royal Scot identity swap

FYI - Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Royal Scot identity swap. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes