Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2012, 2

File:Spuyten.jpg
File:Spuyten.jpg, a map of NYC train lines, is up for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Rationalising infoboxes
We currently have:


 * Infobox heritage railway
 * Infobox railway
 * Infobox rail
 * Infobox rail network
 * Infobox rail company

It would be good to rationalise those into a smaller number, perhaps two, or even one. How can we best do this? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this would be a good idea? Edgepedia (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's not currently clear which should be used in any given circumstance, and to reduce the maintenance overhead. Why do we need more than one or two templates? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: as Infobox railway ‎ has only a single transclusion, I've nominated it for deletion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In principle fewer infoboxes is good since there's clarity about which to use and it cuts down on back-end maintenance. While I'm usually supportive of Andy's rationalization efforts I'm not convinced at first impression that there's much that can be done here. It might be possible to merge and ; there's a mix of US- and UK-specific parameters but that's no hardship. Heritage railway really is doing its own thing. I'd never seen before today but it's functioning at country-level. At the very least it needs to be cut over to use as its base. Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So there's a *Infobox heritage railway" template? Good. I'd like to whip one up for the Railroad Museum of Long Island. --DanTD 15:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Currently Infobox heritage railway is used in heritage railway articles (e.g. North Norfolk Railway), Infobox rail network in Rail transport in country pages (e.g Rail transport in Germany) and Infobox rail company in the UK Train operating companies (e.g. Anglia Railways. These look like distinct uses with little overlap. Edgepedia (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Rapid transit move
Someone else informally requested a move months ago with the discussion stalling. I've decided to make it a formal discussion. Please see Talk:Rapid transit. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 21:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Alleged La Salle, Rockford and Central Railway
I've started a discussion at Talk:La Salle, Rockford and Central Railway It doesn't seem legitimate to me. Help from people who can smell the difference would be appreciated. --Closeapple (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with SNCF article WWII section
Hello to the members of this Wikipedia project, my name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. The SNCF entry includes a link to this project, which is why I have come here. My colleagues have been aware for some time that certain sections of the company's entry, particularly related to WWII, contain a number of inaccuracies, and presents events in a distorted manner. The sections in question are "World War II involvement" and "Reactions to World War II involvement".

It's a very complicated and sensitive subject, however, I'm afraid the presentation of facts in this entry is flawed. I would very much appreciate it if independent editors from this project were moved to help me correct the record, in the interest of historical accuracy. I have provided the details of one relatively small issue to begin with, which you can see via this link: Talk:SNCF Is there an editor here who is willing to assist? Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ampang Line
Could somebody who understands about templates and infoboxes please fix this article? Somehow the whole article has got inside the infobox and it has been like this for two years! I seem to be too old and stupid to understand how to put it right. Thank you -- Alarics (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My quick fix was to take the map out of the infobox. I remember an entertaining evening trying to get a map to work inside an infobox. Anyway, I think it's better outside, as it's rather wide. Edgepedia (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't broken for two years - more like eight hours. There was a series of edits to Template:Ampang Line this afternoon where the editor kept adding and removing stuff, but didn't realise that the number of table-end markers  at the bottom was critical - at one point they added two, later on they removed three. An infobox is a table, so the missing one meant that the table-end marker which should have closed the infobox actually closed the RDT, leaving the infobox open; and in HTML, if you don't close a table, it persists to the bottom of the article, which is why the whole article seemed to be inside the infobox. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it was broken for 2 years because when I looked at a version from two years ago in the article's history it showed the same problem. I didn't realise that the incorrect edits were to the template itself and not the article. -- Alarics (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

redlinked image
The Beijing–Baotou Railway article has a missing file and is giving two red links in the route diagram template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the missing images, but the RDT as a whole still renders quite badly, with gaps between rows (maybe due to size?) bobrayner (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm - the gaps seemed to happen where there are distance markers (and the distance is more than 100km). I've fixed that too. bobrayner (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And a few more at Formosa Boulevard Station. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also fixed, in a more direct fashion! It seems that those images were supposed to be logos of some kind, which would probably fail WP:MOSICON. bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

George England - Shannon
In the page re George England the 0-4-0 loco allocated to WTC was originally built for the Sandy and Potton railway and the name Shannon was after a ship named by Captain Peel who built the Railway. the loco shed is still here in Potton. These facts and others can be confirmed by the NRM in York/Shildon who own the little loco, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.55.73 (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous IP asked me about the NY&NE
Some semi-anonymous IP asked my permission to add and correct new data related to the New York and New England Railroad, as if somehow I was in charge of this. Here's the message he left on my talk page. I had to split it off. -User:DanTD (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Penrose railway station
moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)

Routebox border widths
Under some circumstances, the border widths in routeboxes can appear to be double width, as seen at Shildon railway station. I've worked out what causes this, and have started a discussion at Template talk:Rail line. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bahnhof and Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station
Template:Infobox Bahnhof and Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station are nominated for merge. Please comment at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 7. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Parentheticals again
moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)

Rupashi Bangla Express
Hi. I am not too familiar with notability of train routes and was wondering if someone could comment on my proposal at Talk:Rupashi Bangla Express. Thank you. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

InterCity 125 and the use of nouns to make verbs in English
An IP maintains that "re-engined" and "liveried" are not words in English, and replaced them with various circumlocutions in InterCity 125. I reverted this on the grounds that they are perfectly good words (and I have certainly read them in the railway press). The IP has reverted my revert. I don't want to be accused of edit-warring. Does anyone have a view? -- Alarics (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Liveried is in both the OED and Merriam-Webster. Re-engined derives naturally from engine.  Both seem fine to me;  I can only speculate, but they may sound archaic to U.S. ears? - TB (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Liveried" may be just a little bit obscure for readers not familiar with transport in the UK. I could live with it, but a rephrase to use the word "livery" instead might help a bit. bobrayner (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As an Aussie, I'm comfortable with the word "liveried". In any case, what would be an appropriate alternative? "Painted" may be true for old motive power and rolling stock, but modern stuff is often decorated in wrap advertising or similar, and therefore not necessarily painted. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Liveried" is listed in the Oxford Dictionary of English, International Edition, so is definitely okay. "Re-engined" isn't, but it's not uncommon as a specialist word and I would have no problem with leaving it in until further research is done. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would someone like to amend back the article then? -- Alarics (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's, since some of the edits seemed valid to me. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno if "liveried" is part of American English (I'm Canadian)—outside of referring to New York City Taxicabs—but "re-engined" is certainly in common use. Useddenim (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not so Useddenim, engine is not a verb (to engine). One cannot engine some thing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Descriptivism should take priority over prescriptivism here. You may well argue that "engine is not a verb", but people do treat it as one in the outside world. "Re-engined" is a perfectly cromulent word. bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we should embiggen our articles with such cromulence. Note that dictionary.com has an entry for re-engine: "[ree-en-juhn] verb (used with object), re·en·gined, re·en·gin·ing. to equip with a new engine or engines,  as an aircraft." I'd also note that I've seen it used in various print publications dealing with the refurbishment of diesel locomotives. As such, I'd suggest it's perfectly appropriate for it to be used here. Zzrbiker (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My great mind is not embolded by your words. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Cap’n: I never said that it was a verb, just that it was in common use. Useddenim (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Concern over category structure
Today someone has created a category which suggests that Rail museums are Hobbies - they may well be, but I suspect it is a deviation from what I would have thought would be more appropriately linked to aspects of the museums and train category trees:

Somehow I find the categorisation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rail_transport_hobbies somewhat suspect, if not conflating some items, that are not necessarily connected. Any ideas on this would be appreciated...

On closer inspection on some categories - the conflation of modelling activities with life size rail machinery somewhat problematic... maybe a subset of categories (or category explanations) needs to be made to make the distinction clearly SatuSuro 14:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While not one who particularly cares about categories (not a favored way to navigate for me), I think this is a good category. There are multiple different rail-related hobbies and that there is some overlap between them (rail fans often have models as well as take pictures, for example), and that is a strong enough connection to warrant a category.
 * That said, the inclusion of railroad museums was a good faith error; some rail museums are heavily supported by volunteer efforts, and that work may be considered a hobby by those people, but many museums are professionally staffed and to call all museums a hobby is an inadvertent insult to all those professionals. oknazevad (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed - thanks for responding - the true agenda by the editor was revealed in edit history - another hobby identified was Train surfing I figure the general contribution to categorisation was best reverted and ignored SatuSuro 23:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Access icon
Template:Access icon - which is used in all transclusions of - has been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 12. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC) amended Red rose64 (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * where ADA is non-blank
 * where access is non-blank


 * That is the most untruths I've ever seen in a deletion nom. This is a vital template. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion was closed as kept. Thank y'all. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Silver Fox models additions
Good morning Trains people! Although I would normally come here only to advance the cause of, as you put it, technical righteousness, today I have a slightly different query, with which I hope that you may be able to help me.

At this link there is a list of the contributions of User:Bigbruce354, which are almost all additions of mention of the availability of model trains made by a company called Silver Fox Models, to the articles about various British Rail rolling stock. All of the additions were sourced solely to the company selling the models, i.e. Silver Fox Models.

Given the determined way in which this editor added this material, almost all on the same day, I would commonly remove the whole lot and then give the editor a stern warning and perhaps appropriate chastisement. However, I'm not sure whether people from this project feel that such additions might in fact be worthwhile, valuable, or potentially appropriate.

Just to confuse me slightly more, respected contributor Redrose64 has already commented about this on Bigbruce354's talk page.

I would welcome your views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This appears to be an assume good faith scenario. In my view, articles about individual locomotive classes are likely to be significantly enhanced by a "Models" section.  There's a well known German magazine that publishes a prominent multipage "prototype and model" article every month, with details of all models of the featured locomotive class that have ever been marketed. I'm planning one day, when I have the time, to use these articles as source material for the relevant en.wikipedia articles about the featured (mostly German) locomotive classes.  So I believe that the content that has been added by Bigbruce354 to the articles he has edited is worthwhile.


 * It would, perhaps, be preferable if the source material cited by Bigbruce354 were independent. However, I believe that it's reasonable to assume that the model maker's website is a reliable source, and in my view reliability is more important than independence.   The material that has been added to the articles is encyclopedic rather than promotional in form.  The articles that have been modified appear to be about obscure prototype classes, and Silver Fox's website indicates that that type of subject matter is Silver Fox's specialty.  Thus, it may well be that Silver Fox is the only manufacturer of models of most of the particular locomotive classes in question, in which case the information that a model is available is perhaps even more useful to a Wikipedia reader than it would be if the subject matter of the article were a well known class (such as the BR class 37 or class 47). Bahnfrend (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Silver Fox do get writeups in the model railway press, which should satisfy WP:3PARTY. left me a message, which I copied back to their talk page, with a note about third-party sources and the WP:EL guideline. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Central station discussion
An editor has been removing links at Central station prompting a discussion at Talk:Central station which you may be interested in. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

National Toy Train Museum at AfD
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Toy Train Museum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/National Toy Train Museum until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Djembayz (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

SNCF WWII
Earlier in the fall I posted a message here asking for input on the article about the French train company SNCF, where I am an outside consultant. The question I raised was about the appropriate weight and content of the article's treatment of the company's role during World War II. The section at the time, and I am afraid still, represents inaccurate and hostile sentiments left over from an edit war in January 2012. I received some useful feedback from editors, and prepared a new section based on it. But discussion has been slow and the problems I raised initially have not been fixed. I would like to invite anyone reading this to comment on this thread if you are interested in helping out. Thanks in advance, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you also tried for input from WP:FRANCE ? -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I visited the WikiProject France discussion page and found that it was not very active, but I did leave a comment there anyway. The conversation has now progressed somewhat, focusing on whether to move extensive commentary about a court case and political controversies in the 2000s to a related article (link). Another editor proposed this, and I have agreed. Would anyone watching this page be interested in joining the conversation? Thanks in advance, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Linking to railway station
Please see discussion at WT:UKRAIL, which apparently also affects non-UK articles. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Template coding glitch?
Can someone take a look at the route maps in the Overlander (train) and Northern Explorer articles? they show a bit of wikitext in the template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem wasn't with the template; the diagrams were coded incorrectly. Everything displays correctly now that the diagrams are in separate templates. Useddenim (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

New template for train consists
I've developed a new template for representing individual consists in a tabular format:. I've been kicking this around in my userspace for a while; I wanted a standardized way to represent the information that didn't involve huge chunks of text in the middle of an article (see 20th Century Limited for example of what I'm talking about). Feedback appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Japanese trains to categorise on Commons
Hi all. Commons admin Russavia just uploaded a bit under 4k photos of Japanese railways. Could someone help categorise them please? A list can be found on ja.wp - http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85:Russavia#Trains -mattbuck (Talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)