Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Style advice

Notability
I'm not sure about the notability standards, since reporting marks have only been used since the early 20th century. Reporting marks seem to be assigned to any campany that is operating trains. Would it be reasonable to extend this back to the 19th century? Would it also be reasonable to include companies that stopped construction (South Pennsylvania Railroad, for instance) or were taken over by another company before beginning operations? In both cases, merging is obviously needed for some minor early lines. But would it be acceptable to simply say "any railroad that started construction work"? --NE2 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The construction threshhold seems reasonable for inclusion. I've seen similar reasoning used on a couple of AfD keep votes in the past.  The key here is that a company is notable enough to be recognized by an outside observer as a separate entity, so the start of construction would form the nexus between conceptual and concrete entities.  Having an assigned reporting mark indicates that the company is recognized as a separate entity by an impartial outside party. Slambo (Speak)  21:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not refer to equipment as she?
Part of the style guide suggests not refering to a peice of equipment as she. Yet it has always been customary to personify certain inanimate objects. This comes from Navy tradition and goes back hundreds of years. In languages that use gender for common nouns, locomotives and other vehicles almost invariably use a feminine form. When refering to a specific peice of equipment 'she' is a valid term. Have a look at the wiki pages for other locomotives E.g. Ja1250, NZR R class or do a search for 'she locomotive'and see how many hits you get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.147.198 (talk • contribs) 14:00, April 20, 2007


 * Because it's not encyclopedic style and presents an unprofessional appearance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a personal website.  In addition, there are a huge number of non-native English readers who access the site, so the use of idioms is generally frowned upon. Slambo (Speak)  10:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Railway operators vs. infrastructure managers
In Europe, EU legistlation has caused that ownership and management of the railway infrastucture and the railway operators (i.e the companies that operate trains to provide the freight and passenger services) have been separated from each other. I think this should somehow be taken into account in the structute of articles about railroads. The current style guide appears to imply that railway operator owns and manages infrastucture of it's own, which is not any more always the case.

Sivullinen 12:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Timetable cite?
Is there a template for citing timetables, employee or public? I've looked but don't seem to see one. --plaws 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't one that I know of, but there should be. For those that are online, cite web can be used; I used that for a couple such as on Carl Sandburg (Amtrak).  For others, some variation of cite book can be used, as was used on Sioux (passenger train). Slambo (Speak)  11:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kinda complex. I've been using the generic cite but it'd be kind of nice to have a generic timetable cite given how ubiquitous TTs are in RR history ...  Is it hard to make a template?  --plaws 21:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Creating a template is fairly simple; it gets difficult when you have to keep track of all the brackets when you start adding nested parser functions. I don't see anything in the MLA style guides specifically about citing timetables, so what other guides can we reference for information on an appropriate citation style? Slambo (Speak)  10:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The generic cite lacks a pages field, which is annoying. Looking at cite book a little more, though, not only does it have pages for the cite, but it seems to have web stuff, too. Maybe this is the one - it would cover both the older paper-only TTs as well as the current Amtrak (and other) web TTs.  It also has a free-form id field which could be used for the "form" number often used by RRs.  Whaddya think?  --plaws 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with a source for a future article
I'm trying to write an article on Tinley Park - 80th Avenue (Metra)|Tinley Park - 80th Avenue (Metra) station, and one source that I have on it contains an article that was reposted on the "Railroad.net" forum. The problem is, I can't for the life of me find out where this article was originally published. Here's the link(http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=478329&sid=55f4f3937d836f1014d50cd0838b4819), and he're the article;

The train's still in the station Rebuilding plans on hold at Tinley Park Metra stop - for now

September 20, 2007 By Kristen Schorsch, Staff writer

For 33 years, Cathy Lia has had to lift herself onto the Metra train at 80th Avenue and Timber Drive in Tinley Park. The buckling platform beneath her is marked with divots and low points that force riders to grab and pull.

"It's getting harder and harder to get on that train," Lia, 53, said Wednesday morning, armed with coffee and a bag of goodies, compliments of the village of Tinley Park. "You have to literally pull yourself up."

Lia would like a new train station, but most of all, the Orland Park resident wants a new platform.

So does Donna Herman 42, of Tinley Park, who said she has sprained her ankle twice getting on and off the train.

"When you jump down, you jump into the potholes," Herman said while waiting for her ride to downtown Chicago.

Tinley Park officials want commuters to know they feel their pain. That's why Mayor Ed Zabrocki and more than a dozen village employees arrived at the station before dawn Wednesday.

It was part commuter appreciation day, part campaign effort.

Commuters received free coffee and doughnuts as well as a bag of pamphlets telling them about Tinley's efforts to rebuild the more than 25-year-old station. Other pamphlets reminded riders to take the 1-year-old Veterans Parkway from 183rd Street to shave minutes of their trip to the station. Others encouraged commuters to sign up for a community e-mail that would provide information about the 80th Avenue station, including construction updates and special events.

As riders waited for trains, Zabrocki chatted with them, telling them about the financial questions that are holding up improvements.

The 80th Avenue station serves about 3,000 commuters a day and is the fourth-busiest station on the entire Metra system.

So far, Tinley Park has set aside about $1 million for the project and has secured a $700,000 federal grant, village manager Scott Niehaus said.

Metra has to pay for a new building and platform, which is estimated to cost about $2 million. Tinley will cover the cost of any upgrades.

But Metra, which is part of the Regional Transportation Authority, is in no shape to pay its share. The RTA has threatened to slash services and hike fares to deal with a more than $200 million budget deficit.

In the past three years, Metra has had to divert about $100 million from capital projects like train station improvements to pay for day-to-day operations because of a lack of money from the state, spokeswoman Judy Pardonnet said.

Illinois senators this week offered a plan to create new casinos and expand existing ones to help foot the bill for mass transit in Chicago as well as pay for construction and education. The plan would provide about $200 million for the RTA, which oversees the Chicago Transit Authority, Pace and Metra, but the agency would have to pay the money back.

"Any funding is helpful; however, what is really needed to sustain our system is a long-term capital program," Pardonnet said. "We have said that from the start. ... We're still hopeful that Springfield will come through."

That means projects have to wait.

Tinley Park has been asking for a new station at 80th Avenue for at least two years. It aims to double the size of its nearly 1,500-square-foot terminal, where people snag coffee and wait for rides, and replace the aging platform. In 2005, a lack of state funding delayed the project.

A look at the station during early morning rush hour provides a glimpse of why the village is calling for improvements.

As trains barrel down the tracks, commuters line up shoulder to shoulder against a fence. When they board trains, they first look down at their footing, then grab a rail to pull themselves up.

Inside the one-story station building, five benches that can fit about four people each line white, barren walls. Riders can buy a cup of joe for 60 cents or 75 cents, depending on the size.

Marcia Partipilo, 45, of Homer Glen, has been serving coffee from a small counter since the brick building opened more than 25 years ago. She said the structure recently received new windows, a new roof and a fresh coat of paint inside.

Partipilo understands people might want a few extras at a train station, but she said commuters spend only five minutes or so coming and going.

"Why spend the money?" she said. "Just beautify it a little more."

Tinley Park Trustee Greg Hannon said new amenities at 80th Avenue would be similar to those at the Oak Park Avenue train station, which was renovated in 2003.

The $4.4 million makeover included a building with an observation tower and facade that matches the architecture of the historic Tinley Park downtown district. A full-service kitchen serves hot coffee, breakfast and lunch. Commuters also received new lighting and surveillance cameras.

The 80th Avenue station, though, would be built to match the surrounding residential neighborhood, park and nearby public library, Hannon said. The Tinley Park Public Library is a prairie-style brick building with slanted roofs similar to nearby homes. The station probably won't serve hot meals, but it will have coffee, Hannon said.

"It doesn't need to be a central focal point like Oak Park Avenue," Hannon said.

The village plans to start designing the station so it can begin construction when money becomes available, Niehaus said. The project likely will cost about $4 million.

Will somebody tell me where this was published? Or will it be okay if I just use the forum as a reference? DanTD (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I created the article anyhow without the original publication of the source. But I'd still like to find out where it was originally published. DanTD (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard subsections
I think the "Standard subsections" chapters of "Manual of style" are quite weak. To make a resonable article e.g. about a railrod, far more sections than the given four are needed. Look e.g. at the featured articles Rail transport in Romania, where there are 9 main sections, or Rail transport in India, which has 16 top level chapters, and compare these to the "Standard subsections" of "Manual of style". IMHO this part of "Manual of style" needs some attention to be usable and to be able to unify the stucture of the articles. --Sivullinen (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous use of "and"
I'm just wondering why it is necessary to change the titles of articles (move) which have "&" in the title to "and". It's nice to see some consistency and articles should of course display the correct name - but in many cases the "&" is the official spelling and part of the trading style of a company.

The equivalent would be for me to move the article Coca-Cola to soft drink with vegetable extracts both of which are correct, but only the first is the correct, copyrighted name.


 * (edit) from Ampersand: When the ampersand forms part of a registered name (e.g. Brown & Watson); it should not be replaced with and.


 * -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that all these article name changes have been made by one person. The section of the Manual of style in question doesn't appear to have been discussed (and apparently was arbitrarily included when the MOS was first set-up more than two years ago) all and I can only agree with the comment above. Why do people have to be so keen and not let common sense prevail? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 01:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose the section of the Manual of Style should be changed to read something like this:


 * Article names should use the word "and" instead of an ampersand unless the ampersand can be shown to be correct as part of a registered name or trading style.


 * For example, at Talk:Northampton & Lamport Railway I have provided several reasons (including references) why that particular article should retain the ampersand. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "and" instead of an ampersand in article titles was discussed as early as 2004 in WikiProject Trains. It was discussed again in 2005 and consensus was to still use "and" at that time. The only change that I see since then is that WP:MOSNAME doesn't mention the use of the ampersand in article titles any more. Personally, I'd prefer to continue to use "and" for consistency. Slambo (Speak) 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ampersands "&" in Railroad titles These little marks are part of many U. S. railroad corporate titles as the railroad names were reported to the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is evidentily Wikipedia Policy to change actual corporate titles by substituting the word "and" instead of the ampersand "&". This is done to enhance linkability between articles. This is not the correct corporate title in some cases. For example the correct title in 1948 for the Santa Fe is The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. By substituting an incorrect name Wikipedia is practicing a type of revisionist history and the true name is lost. Wikipedia should use the correct railroad name, not one of convenience. --SSW9389 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since we don't include the capitalized "The" that the ICC does, that's kind of moot. It would also be kind of silly to always refer to it with "and" before the reorganization and "&" after. Maybe we need country-specific rules? --NE2 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I recently read an old issue of Trains in which they explain their choice to always use the ampersand, even when the official corporate title uses "and". It's not some sort of "revisionism"; it's a house style that they, and on the opposite end we, have adopted. --NE2 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

VIA-style infoboxes
Is anybody willing to create infoboxes specifically for Canada's VIA Rail stations? The United States already has them for Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, and New Jersey Transit, and Canada has some for AMT and GO Transit. DanTD (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: -- I just found somebody who did. Everybody can thank User:Secondarywaltz. DanTD (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Defaultsort guidelines
Hi, all. Saw a recent edit to an article I built, Sussex Railroad, that introduced a defaultsort with two spaces between Sussex and Railroad per your guidelines here. May I ask what the reason for the double space is? It has the unfortunate effect of alphabetizing Sussex Railroad above Sussex Airport (New Jersey) in Category:Transportation in Sussex County, New Jersey. This isn't desirable. --Rkitko (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the guideline discussion on the main wikiproject talk page. I'll take my comments there. --Rkitko (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Exclusion of the word "Company"
Are there any objections to codifying the common practice of leaving off the word "Company" from an article name when it comes after "Railway" or "Railroad"? --NE2 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it's hard saying if there's anything wrong against the use of it. In most general cases, the term "Company" is usually used "on paper" to legally identify the corporation as opposed to being officially appended as part of the railroad's name, which makes sense to leave it out.


 * But, I suppose some exceptions can me made in certain cases where the naming convention is clear enough. Probably a good example of this rare case would be the Panama Canal Railway Company (PCRC) based in Panama. Everything from the official site, railroad logo, and even rolling stock seem to suggest this being part of the full railroad name. Perhaps in circumstances like these, such railroads could be exempt from the common practice of leaving out this title. smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily: --NE2 16:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, look at it in this way; it's an unofficial/unrelated news article with merely a single link to the railroad's website. Given the use of reliable references, I'd at least say it's clear the full railroad name appears to have "Company" appended unlike most others, and its use in railroad logos, public advertising, and equipment alone should perhaps warrant certain exemptions for naming accuracy, especially per WP:IAR.


 * Any thoughts from others perhaps? smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS for train stations?
Hi there. I'm attempting to clean up and improve the articles about stations served by Metrolink, a commuter rail service in Southern California. I was wondering if there was a Manual of Style for train stations, as I can't seem to locate one. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned from time-to-time that the SoCal Metrolink station articles need a lot of work. In fact, I've noticed this about a lot of California railroad station articles. Once in a while, I've tried to add infoboxes to many of the station articles for those of you on the west coast, but since I've never been to California, nor can I think of anything that could ever bring me there, a lot of what I've read about the stations out there have puzzled me. In nay case, I'll help when I can. DanTD (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello TorriTorri, pardon me for approaching from the negative, but we might discuss what is not appropriate for railway station articles:
 * References that describe routine schedule changes
 * Distances to nearby rail stations. A map or table in the line article is a more appropriate place for this. Inclusion in station articles leads to unnecessary duplication of the same information.
 * Distance to nearest airport. Yes, it may be available, but is it useful? This datum didn't make it into the station infobox Template:Infobox_station for a reason.
 * Elevation above sea level. Yes, it may be available, but is it useful? It is significant only if the station is subject to flood. This datum didn't make it into the station infobox Template:Infobox_station for a reason.
 * References that describe work on the line, not the station. The result is duplicated text for many stations on the line.
 * Gratuitous descriptions of nearby attractions, unless the station is the only access or is the attraction. WP is not a travel guide.
 * Think before you describe a major station, or major junction. Rhadow (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hyperbole
Major and important are thrown around with careless abandon, especially where the trains halting at a station are concerned. If they were so important, there would not be so many red links. One idea is to require notability, the same way we do for schools and their alumni. If the train is not a blue link, it goes. It is a simple matter to determine whether a train halts at a particular station, so the matter of additional references is no big deal. The words important and major appear frequently in the description of the station itself. There is no doubt that a station is important to the village, town, or city in which it is located, but to be important or major, the effect needs to be more broad. As a first cut, the top ten percent are major. The bottom twenty percent are small or minor. No description is required for the others. Argue for other numbers, but agree at least that half cannot get a superlative title. Rhadow (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * IMvHO, it's quite simple. For a station to sustain a stand-alone article, the formula N = V x RS applies, as it does for all articles. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I agree. The sticky point here is that Alumni and Trains serving a station are elements of the article and not normally subject to notability standards on their own, although they are subject to V and RS.
 * The challenge we face is articles that take a single fact, the geographic location of a station, and expand it into paragraphs of trivia. In information theory terms, the location is a single feature.  No additional knowledge is conveyed by the following expansions:
 * The nearest five towns
 * A list of every train passing the station. If the list is curated, i.e. really important trains, then the list is useful.
 * A list of every other station on the line. That is better conveyed by a route map, best accessible by link to the line.
 * A list of every major city accessible from this station. In a connected rail network, every city should be accessible from every station.
 * This is all a matter of style. It needs not be policy. That would be WP:CREEP. Nevertheless, editors should be commended for articles that supply all the relevant information or links in the fewest paragraphs. That is what serves the reader best.
 * Experience has show that any time a database (or encyclopedia) includes the same material twice, one occurrence is likely to be wrong. Using links to reduce the amount of duplication is truly a better way to go. Rhadow (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Indian railway station classes, grades, and categories
Here is a an explanation of classes and categories of Indian rail stations from an unreliable, but likely true source: Class refers to the complexity of the track configuration at a station, including whether it has switches and signals. It indicates the training required of the pilot. Category describes annual passenger count and revenue. Grade refers to the quality and alignment of the track on a line and the resulting speed limits. Rhadow (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

When a railway article mandates Use Indian English
Use the terms below (and edit if I'm wrong or missed something):

‎Dl2000, Fowler&amp;fowler, and FR you may wish to comment. Rhadow (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A cursory look at some sites and WP pages suggests Australian terms mostly follow UK/Commonwealth wordings, but differences are possible. Have added links in the generic column to WP pages for reference. Dl2000 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of infobox station in Indian railway station articles
Various articles have an ADA or disabled field in the infobox. Many articles have a handicapped icon applied. There seems to be no regular source of this information, certainly not in the the standard Indiarailinfo or NDTV website databases. What standard does Indian Railways have for handicapped access if any? If there is no source for this data, I will simply blank this field. Otherwise it will convey false expectations to readers.

Various articles describe the category of the station, then go on to use the classification field in the infobox. There is no way for a reader to interpret category or class of Indian railways stations (but both are defined). Unless there is a place to wikilink to, there is no point in having these data elements in Indian railway station articles.

native_name and native_name_lang should be blank or deleted altogether in Indian railway station articles.

map_locator is a waste or time. It may require the coordinates and station name to be entered a second time. It is simple to blank or delete it, then use the simpler map_type field instead. Rhadow (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Two images for infoboxes
Are there parameters to allow two images at once to be added to infoboxes? I noticed that somebody added a second image in the one for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit, but it's within a thumbnail, and it's off center. DanTD (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Article naming conventions
I posted this question on the help desk page, and they sent me here. So here is my question that I posted there: "I have a question about the naming conventions of articles that I was hoping someone could answer. I have already read the naming conventions article, and my question was not answered by that. I have written several articles (La Floresta (FGC) and Sant Cugat (FGC)) about train stations run by a Catalan train company called the FGC. I was at first unsure about how to name these pages, but then I found a page on the same topic, Les Planes (FGC), which used the naming convention (putting 'FGC' in parentheses after the name of the station) that I then adopted for the two previously mentioned articles I created. But I am not sure if this is the right way to name these pages, as the redlinks to them are often inconsistent. Also the articles about the FGC's train lines are named as FGC lineand then the name of the line (for example FGC line S1). Should the stations be named as La Floresta (FGC station)? or FGC station La Floresta? Also, if you look at the names of some of the articles about the FGC stations, you will see that they have the name of the article followed by(Barcelona Metro) (for example, Sarrià (Barcelona Metro), but it is only correct to name articles about FGC stations this way if they are serviced by a FGC line that is part of the Barcelona Metro system, which the stations I am talking about are not. Please advise."

Thanks,  Liam98 7   12:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox template s-rail/s-line template uses multiple formats for it's FGC station redlinks: Rubí station (FGC), Valldoreix FGC station, and Sant Cugat station (non of these pages exist).  Liam98 7   12:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Station naming convention
I'm trying to find some information on the naming convention(s) used for naming train stations. I'm told there was some heated debate about it, but I'm not finding it. I'm trying to resolve some inconsistent names for stations in the MARC system and had a rename reverted. Anyway, can someone point me in the right direction? &mdash;Al E.(talk) 18:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the standard (Naming conventions (stations)). I wanted to post this on Martinsburg (Amtrak station), but I posted the talk page from that instead. DanTD (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Line naming convention
There are several formats to name lines:

Common is "X Line":
 * X Line: Western Line (Mumbai Suburban Railway)
 * X Line: Howrah-New Jalpaiguri Line (28 July 2012 moved to X line by Dicklyon: )
 * X Line: Tucheng Line (Taipei Metro)

Several use "X specifier"/"X Specifier":
 * X railway: Jammu–Poonch railway (!easily mistaken to be a company)
 * X Rail Line: Jasidih Dumka Rampurhat Rail Line (28 July 2012 moved to X railway by Dicklyon: )
 * X Railway Line: Nilambur – Shoranur Railway Line (28 July 2012 moved to X railway by Dicklyon: )
 * X Branch Line: Sheoraphuli-Tarakeswar Branch Line (28 July 2012 moved to X branch line by Dicklyon )
 * X Main Line: Howrah-Bardhaman Main Line
 * X section: Barauni-Katihar section
 * X Chord: Howrah-Bardhaman Chord (28 July 2012 moved to X chord by Dicklyon )
 * X Road Line: New Jalpaiguri-Alipurduar-Samuktala Road Line (28 July 2012 moved to X line by Dicklyon - So it is not a Road Line, but Road is part of the name of one end point. Still ambiguous is the word "New".)
 * X line: Fremont–Daly City line

Other: Triomio (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 (New York City Subway service)
 * R (New York City Subway service)
 * U5 (Berlin U-Bahn)
 * Line A (Buenos Aires Metro)
 * Per WP:MULTI, please can we keep this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains where it originated? -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not MULTI. It belongs to the Manual of Style. Such a case by case working like with Jammu–Poonch railway doesn't result in consist representation. Here is a place for people that are interested in railway in general and not just one proposed line in India that some people want to name inconsistent with other articles. Triomio (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a rail-specific naming convention would be entirely helpful, though it might be a good idea to point out some names of existing articles (ie. descriptive rather than prescriptive). I think it would be better to apply the same naming rules that we already apply to the rest of the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The rail naming would be greatly improved it would conform to MOS:DASH and MOS:CAPS, for example.  What's a railway and what's a Railway is clear when caps are used consistently enough that readers can start to get the difference.  The "Road Line" was a good case in points.  With endpoints named "New X" and "Y Road" it's not easy to make it completely unambiguous, but the proper case and dashes sure does help a lot.  In the case of the New York City Subway examples, that project has decided to declare Subway part of a proper name and capitalize it, even though it's not the official name and is commonly lower case in sources.  I gave up there, because I don't want to take on a wikiproject; gave up at astronomy and dog breeds for the same reason.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please also see this and this discussion. In accordance with them, the above-proposed capitalised 'Railroad' and en dash have been implemented in article titles of railroads in Slovenia (see Category:Railway lines in Slovenia). --Eleassar my talk 08:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposing articles about rail route style guide
As you know, sometimes railway line names are just nominal. The following table summarize such train routes to railway lines relations. Unfortunately, current style guide applications to the pattern B, C, and D cause confusion on the article contents.

Thus, I think there is need for creating a new style guide called something like "Articles about rail route" style guide, which should be derived from the Articles about named passenger train services style guide. I also propose the new style guide to the pattern B, C, and D. in the following table. Any feedbacks and suggestions are welcome. Thanks. KU (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style → WikiProject Trains/Style advice – Misleading name; this is not among the Manual of Style guidelines nor its subpages; it's a wikiproject advice page essay, on style. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How much detail about individual accidents?
How much detail should be included about each accident in a bulleted list of accidents on a railroad article page? This has come up over at the Union Pacific Railroad page, and is now under discussion. One editor is of the opinion that a recent non-fatal accident deserves hundreds of words of description; another would rather keep bulleted items to about two sentences, with more significant accidents being written up in their own article. We'd love to hear about general practices and other editors' thoughts on the matter. PRRfan (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel that a Union Pacific incident that have a significant impact to an entire metropolitan area of a major city and receives multiple ongoing coverage deserves more than a sentence or two in the main Union Pacific page provided that everything said is properly referenced. Currently, the page is filled with arduous details about individual train serial numbers/VINs and their whereabouts with little to no independent reliable sources. As with the general norms of Wikipedia, ongoing coverage in regional and national press is an evidence of notability. For this reason, I believe it is more relevant to Union Pacific article than whereabouts of specific train serial #s and their whereabouts. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Article titles

 * Sometimes things just go in a direction and end up that way. The four criteria found in WikiProject Trains/Style advice indicates specific subtypes should be used such as the parenthetical "locomotive", "manufacturer model", and "most common company and class names". The last criteria does state "should be named with the most common name used to identify the equipment" which is likely why the "Whyte notation" system began to be used, but also adds, " using disambiguation as appropriate (such as John Bull (locomotive))".
 * It seems the disambiguation used at 4-8-4 (4-8-4 (Northern)?), lacking a specific "prefaced" identifier such as Timken 1111 or Santa Fe 3751, might be better presented like 4-8-2 (Mountain), 2-8-4 (Berkshire), 4-6-4 (Hudson), which is at least a better option than just the wheel configuration. The 4-4-0, even though also used extensively in the United Kingdom, has been commonly referred to as the "American so it would seem 4-4-0 (American) might be better. The 4-6-0 has commonly been referred to as the 4-6-0 (Ten-wheeler).


 * The point is that it does not appear the intent of the project was to use only the ambiguous wheel configuration (Whyte notation), but it has just evolved in that direction, so I am just bringing this up for comments. Otr500 (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Totals to Rolling Stock or Motive Power Tables
Recently there were edits to several of the EMD locomotive pages that I follow where the change was simply the addition of a totals line. My question is this vandalism or best practice? Has the community come to a consensus about this?

Below is the edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EMD_GP60&diff=prev&oldid=1210324310 Jcody21 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)