Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 42

LNER
Just a heads-up. I've just reverted a retargeting of LNER from London and North Eastern Railway to London North Eastern Railway (train operating company). The retarget was obviously made in good faith, but I feel that the primary use of LNER is the company that formed one of the "big four" between 1923 and 1948, and not the TOC that has just been formed. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a redir that's been around for nearly fifteen years should not be repurposed without a WP:RFD. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish the DfT would come up with original ideas rather than resorting to naming everything after a Royal or a throwback to the 1920s... Actually, let's rename all TOCs after Royalty, and then have them all rename so they keep the correct order of succession whenever the monarch dies. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My edit was probably premature, and apologies if I didn't follow the correct protocol. I do think the primary use of LNER will soon be understood to be the existing company rather than the historic one. In time this will need to be reflected in the redirect. Tammbeck (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that, the article Great Western Railway should always be the 1840 company, not the current franchise holder, so should it be with LNER, SR, LSWR, LNWR, and whatever other old railway company names they can come up with to try and obscure who runs the trains. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - it's not a big problem. Both articles have hatnotes pointing to the other article, so readers are easily able to find the article they are looking for. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I miss a discussion somewhere about the article name? It seems that someone has decided that the new LNER does not need any disambiguation....Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to retitle UK Railways portal
Editors here may wish to be aware that there is a proposal to retitle Portal:UK Railways here. Bermicourt (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although the nominator has withdrawn it. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And now has been done without further discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a lot of further discussion, at portals UK trams, UK waterways, London transport, etc. If you think that railways here is somehow needing caps, just ask at WP:RMTR to have the move reverted and we can discuss.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Anthony Appleyard. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to think there's more than this one move without an explicit RM consensus. Not so. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With you everyone is damn right to be suspicious. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that personal attack. I haven't had enough of those recently. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bulk link changes by
Once again, we have a middle-of-the-night bulk run by a brand new [sic] editor, to rename things.

Mostly this is to strip redirects, against WP:NOTBROKEN, particularly for reasons like contentious name changes of Newcastle Central to just Newcastle. They're also stripping use ot the rws and stnlnk templates. Some changes, like this are particularly bad, as they make an anachronistic change (in a section "Train services in 1910") to change a station name from the contemporary name Manchester London Road to Manchester Piccadilly, which wasn't introduced for another 50 years.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those edits show an impressive familiarity with Wikipedia for a new editor and some are helpful, but on balance it would be better if they stopped and the worst excesses were rolled back. For example, Midland Mainline has also gained some anachronisms.  It might be helpful to have a FAQ somewhere on why rws is necessary.  (We could also point gnomes there, when they ask why they have to disambiguate manually rather than using the automated tools which work on the rest of Wikipedia.)  Certes (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The changes seem unnecessary, and some are downright wrong. For example,  does not make sense, and (in general, at least) the incoming links ought not to be going to a dab page. , please stop.  --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Some changes, like this are particularly bad, as they make an anachronistic change (in a section "Train services in 1910") to change a station name from the contemporary name Manchester London Road to Manchester Piccadilly, which wasn't introduced for another 50 years."
 * That is a particularly bad edit. On Wikipedia, we do not rewrite history. This is something that needs to be particularly guarded against. Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

For all - This is believed to be a sock of User:D47817. Have created an SPI with checkuser request. Nightfury 12:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As it's now closed as a sock, can we get a bulk rollback? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Apologies for any edit summaries that come up in full caps, had a minor keyboard malfunction. Nightfury 13:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Loco naming conventions?
See WT:WikiProject Trains Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

DMU identity
Someone uploaded this to commons. Can anyone identify what type of DMU this was? G-13114 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be a British Rail Class 116. This image looks similar. Certes (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * motors flanking a trailer. In later life, many of the class 116 trailers were withdrawn (for asbestos reasons) and replaced with spare trailers from other classes. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Painting schedule of preserved locos
Do we really need ? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left the green, removed the transitory stuff and the unfounded optimism about schedules. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And restored again... Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to do something about and their continued contempt for the policy on verifiability, the manual of style, and their persistent inclusion of day-to-day events and future happenings. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel less strongly than you clearly do about this, but I'd have to agree all of your coments.
 * We don't care if it's in undercoat at present. That's unencyclopedic trivia, largely because it's so transitory.
 * The planned completion dates fail WP:CRYSTAL. Particularly so when they leap from year to year with a single edit, these just aren't sourced reliably enough to stand here. Completion dates for restoration projects (F*y*ng Sc*sm*n anyone?) are notoriously fluid. We are not here, as an encyclopedia, to record the optimistic hopes on projects.
 * Sourcing. We rely on sourcing, these are always somewhere between failing and ignoring it.
 * I don't care about "know more about 45596 than you as I am in the group." WP doesn't work that way. If you can't recognise that, there isn't room on WP for you. Also, just how many groups would you have to be a personal member of?  You seem to keep scatter-gunning this stuff everywhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk) 23:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Oh well excuse me as im only stating the truth and know more about 45596 than you as I am in the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In which case you have a clear conflict of interest and must not edit articles about subjects with which you are involved. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - You've had plenty of feedback. Further edits that breach WP:V and/or WP:COI and I will indeff you. Cease and desist or face the consequences. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - including a timestamp, which seems to have been frequently updated. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the timestamp. Wikipedia's software keeps track of when the article was updated. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Remember that Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and consequently the typical audience and scope of what an article can cater for has to be more general and broad compared to what you can find in the archives of Ian Allen Publishing. It's also not the only website on the planet (not everything in http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/ makes it over here, for example), so if your work is reverted for the reasons stated above, it's nothing personal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Seaton Tramway
Should the Seaton Tramway, well-known as a miniature tram in Devon and built in 1970, be described as "originally standard gauge"? It (mostly) follows the trackbed of the Beeching-axed Seaton branch. However that's a question of real estate, nothing else. There's no technical continuity or commercial continuity. It was a new private development, a relocation of a tramway from elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bure Valley Railway and Kirklees Light Railway are stated as originally standard gauge, so for consistency I'd say yes. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet the Exeter–Plymouth line, which is a direct evolutionary continuation of it, doesn't mention its broad gauge origin. "Consistency" (and I'm a big fan of the Emerson quote) is no substitute for accuracy, clarity and conveying useful information. Exeter-Plymouth should give its origin as broad gauge, but all three of the others are too far from the original railway for it to remain relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Copy and paste from template:Infobox Heritage Railway:


 * Commercial operations
 * linename 	name of the railway in its pre-preservation s*tate
 * builtby 	name of railway's constructor; most likely a railway company
 * originalopen 	original opening
 * originalgauge details of pre-preservation track gauge
 * originalrack 	details of pre-preservation rack system (if applicable)
 * originalelec 	details of pre-preservation electrification (if any) That is the guide. Peter Horn User talk 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But it's not a preserved railway. It's a new-build tramway, in the same place. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to that reasoning Bure Valley Railway and Kirklees Light Railway are not preserved railways either but new-build heritage railways on the old track bed. However both were treated as being preserved railways, if only because they preserved the old track beds  Read all the fields in template:Infobox Heritage Railway. Peter Horn User talk 01:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Heritage railway? You mean, "a railway operated as living history to re-create or preserve railway scenes of the past." – yet none of those three are re-creations or preservations of earlier railways?
 * And why are you adding more nonsense to the Seaton Tramway article, such as it being two foot gauge, or having third rail electrification? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The section Seaton Tramway told me that the Seaton tramway started out as a 2 ft operation and was converted to 2 ft 9 in at some point. The template used in all three previously mentioned operations is Template:Infobox Heritage Railway. Hence it is only appropriate that all the available data be entered into the infoboxes of the articles as defined by the fields of said template. However the original London and South Western Railway was apparently not electrified on that route. Peter Horn User talk 12:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the article doesn't say that. I don't think it ever did. Even if it did, WP is not WP:RS.
 * The tramway did run for its first season as battery electric, but then went overhead once the lines were up - just as is normal for trams. It never had any sort of third rail, only you have said this. Nor did the L&SWR use electrification. To confuse the electrification over in the South East of England with happenings on a rural branch line in Devon - that's just slapdash. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the template usage I said that the third rail was on the original London and South Western Railway, if the branch was electrified at all. According to the template usage, I NEVER said that it was on the tramway. Read and study the template as used. That said, template:Infobox tram network might possibly have been more useful in this article. Other than that, you may need new glasses. Peter Horn User talk 15:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC).
 * LSWR electrification was purely suburban in nature, and did not get any closer to Seaton than Surbiton, which was reached in 1916. Subsequent extensions to the system by the Southern Railway and BR eventually brought electrification to Worting Junction (and Bournemouth) in 1967, but no further along the main line to Exeter. The closest as the crow flies is Dorchester/Weymouth, which was reached in 1988. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So in this field |originalelec      = None is correct, Peter Horn User talk 18:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just leave it off, it only causes unnecessary clutter. After all, I assume that you're going to omit originalrack -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons: CfD - Category:Locomotives of Great Britain up for deletion
Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Locomotives of Great Britain

Or maybe a rename to 1435mm track gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thameslink and Great Northern
Someone hasproposed a semi split/merge of sorts of Thameslink and Great Northern. See Talk:Thameslink and Great Northern. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 22:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As this has no objections, I propose we follow through and split the Southern article into GTR and pre-GTR. Talk:Southern_(Govia_Thameslink_Railway). -mattbuck (Talk) 07:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Chains, again
See recent all edits of  also Talk:East Croydon station. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The disruption on East Croydon continues; I requested temporary page protection, to which the responding admin—one —made an editorial decision to refuse on the grounds that, "having these articles specify the distances in miles and chains is really stupid"—wtf?! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 14:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read this, and find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Fish and Karate. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to a copy of RAIL issue 850
On Mangotsfield and Bath branch line there is a tag saying the title is missing in the citation of RAIL. No. 850. p. 26. Does anyone have access to a copy who could add the title?&mdash; Rod talk 20:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to it now, but the same was put at Mangotsfield when I was rewriting it. I did check and it was not there. I further asked Metrowest and they denied any plans to reopen the branch. They're having enough trouble with Henbury and Portishead and those both have rails still... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - shall I remove the claim "It is currently being examined for reopening as part of the new Bristol Metro."?&mdash; Rod talk 20:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Bristol Metro is going to be one of the few railways needing Unicorn Cars amongst its rolling stock. Still more likely than re-opening Mangotsfield.
 * (But then, if you saw the plans for the Cardiff Metro...) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Clean up of Chain (unit)
See Chain (unit) talk page for a new discussion on improving that article. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Do we have (copies of) the original engineering drawings for the terra-cotta army? Or documents close to the appropriate time period? If so, it is probably best to use those units. But for measurements made (much) later, in a more current unit system, I don't see a reason to back convert. One complication with unit conversion is significant figures and uncertainty. Many values are written with an appropriate number of figures, given the uncertainty in the measurement. Conversions will often either lose precision, or imply greater precision than the original. (This happens naturally on rounding decimal values.) As to railway gauge, I suspect that it was converted, with appropriate rounding and within uncertainty, years ago. This is even done in the definition of many units, when new methods allow for increased accuracy in measurement. If the primary source uses a certain unit, and even if the data comes from a reliable secondary source, it seems reasonably to use the primary source unit, with conversions to modern units. If there is no primary source, with reported measurements being made much later, I don't see any reason to use units that might have been used at the time.
 * (This followed a suggestion that the terra-cotta army measurement be in Qin dynasty units.)
 * It does happen that 1 chain is close enough to 0.01 mile, that implied uncertainty is close enough, though. Gah4 (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We have more than enough ongoing discussions on this matter, please don't start another. The post by Dondervogel 2 here is merely a notification of one of those ongoing discussions. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The comment was originally posted at one of those other locations and I suggested that it would be best to keep arguments for and against the use of the chain in one place, namely here, where it started. Gah4 is simply responding to that request. I consider his point about precision to be a potentially valid reason to use chains that partly counters my concern about unfamiliarity. I therefore think it is worth discussing (on this page). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the move. I tried a little to figure out where it should go, but it seems not enough.  Gah4 (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw . You linked to this page, but not to the actual discussion so presumably did not know where they should comment. But please can we have some respect for WP:TALKFORK? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved the discussion to the RfC Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)