Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 57

Passenger travel data maps


I'm planning to import a set of 2,567 maps, of which the one above is the first, to Wikimedia Commons. There will be one for each current station in England, Wales, and Scotland.

The full set may be seen via.

I'd be grateful for comments on the description of the above image on Commons, and its caption on Birmingham New Street railway station, in order to develop a model which we can hopefully deploy to all, or most, station articles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to see the routes where there are low flow volumes, even when opened full screen. Could you use something with a higher contrast? Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the maps, but I can ask the person who did to consider using a different colour. Alterniatively, as both the data and code are open source, anyone else, with the relevant skills, may do so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do we need this? Clicking on random stations, it appears that the same national routes are highlighted for most. Why should someone looking at an article for a station at one end of the country need to know that people from all sorts of other areas have bought a ticket to it - if that is what the map shows, because it's not really clear. Rcsprinter123   (chinwag)  22:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They might be useful for the really busy stations, but for the majority of average or below traffic stations they seem pretty useless, since their usage is obviously to low to register as a visible line. G-13114 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We could use more local crops for smaller/ less busy stations. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the data shows journeys in both directions, not just inbound travellers. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Vehicle numbering
Hey all - in rolling stock articles, where is the line between useful technical numbers/data and far too much information?

To me, overly detailed explanation of individual vehicle numbering (e.g. British_Rail_Class_701 or British_Rail_Class_195) falls into the latter category - it's highly specialised information more relevant to a database (WP:NOTDATABASE) or a technical audience. Whereas two GA articles of British Rail Class 455 and British Rail Class 700 have clear and simple fleet and formation tables that show relevant data without too much data.

Thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The vehicle numbers could be useful, but they would be better if combined into the table with the unit numbers. Although I do recognise that units often get reformed over time when it could get messy or need some footnotes. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Useful... to who? To me, it's far too much detail for wikipedia in my opinion. Better left to technical manuals or something like LTSV Turini2 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree - people that want that level of detail are likely to know of other sources for finding it. Whether it should be removed is a different question though! Mwsmith20 (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the 701 article, I would be tempted to remove. For example, I have no idea what "diagram" means in the context of the table (not explained really). It is far too detailed and I imagine completely meaningless to the lay reader. Elshad (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In a railway context, a "diagram" is not a technical drawing used for manufacture, but a general outline elevation and plan showing the positions of significant features such as cabs, doors, windows, seats and lavatories. It is primarily of use to the operator of the train, helping them to decide if a particular vehicle is suitable for a given job or not. Shown on the diagram are important dimensions, figures and other information useful to this task - such as overall length, width and height; total weight and axle loadings; seating capacities, wheelchair accessibility; maximum permitted speed, minimum track curvature; type of coupler, electrical and pneumatic connections.
 * Railway people might talk about a second class corridor coach as being Diagram 146 or Diagram 147 - the difference was solely in whether armrests were fitted or not. This might seem minor, but the presence of armrests in Dia. 146 meant that only three people could be accomodated across the seat instead of four, giving a total seating capacity of 48 or 64 respectively - a difference of 16 seats is something that is very important to those processing seat reservations. This is particularly significant if a group of six people want to share a compartment - seat numbers 7–12 are all in the same compartment for Dia. 146, but in Dia. 147, two are in one compartment and four are in the next.
 * A hundred years ago, the diagrams would be bound together as a diagram book, issued by a railway's headquarters to the main depots; updates were infrequent because of the cost of printing whole new books. Fifty years ago they were of a loose-leaf form enabling new diagrams to be added easily, and amendments to be made by simple replacement of the affected pages - an update might take days instead of years. Nowadays it's all digital diagrams on computer updated almost in real time, but diagram numbers still exist - now known as design codes (for example, Diagrams 146 and 147 became design codes AA201 and AA202 respectively). Until the 1980s, the differences needed to be quite major for a new diagram number to be issued - such changes as fitting fluorescent lighting in place of tungsten would go unrecognised in the diagram numbers, but removal of four seats to make space for a refreshment trolley would create a new disgram. With modern diagrams, two design codes may differ in a very minor way, such as the type of lock on the toilet door. -- Red rose64 &#x1F98C; (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I've been bold and removed it - I will direct people here. (did we decide whether we liked the giant side on illustrations or not?) Turini2 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Turini2 just a heads up, your edit summary has an extra "\" in it, causing a redlink Danners430 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah that's frustrating I can't go and fix that afterwards Turini2 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wasn't sure if you were doing more articles, so wanted to let you know - no worries though Danners430 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I went through a few more articles - not sure who started adding extremely excess details regarding the exact number of seats per carriage of a train (e.g. British Rail Class 390 and British Rail Class 373), but I took the bold decision to remove that too. That's far too much detail!
 * Total number of seats on a train, sure! First class in carriages 1 and 2? Sure! A giant table comparing seating in individual carriages before and after a refurb? Def fails the NOTEVERYTHING criteria. Turini2 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Northumberland Park in Tyne & Wear
Currently, I have found a few articles using S-rail that links to Northumberland Park station in London rather than Northumberland Park Metro station. Could someone please update S-rail to add this link? I've forgotten how to do it. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 14:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Jc86035 appears to be the primary maintainer of template:S-rail, but they haven't edited since the start of November. I've put a pointer to this discussion on the template talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages with links/Guide explains how to fix such cases. It was intended for solving links to disambiguation pages but is equally applicable to fixing links to the wrong article if you can find them.  If you have an example of a link that needs fixing, I'll be happy to help. Certes (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Free access to The Railway Magazine
FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoy railway station opening date
Hi, I thought I'd post here to see if anyone has access to a source which might provide the opening date for Hoy railway station. I've mentioned the discrepancy on the talk page, but finding an actual reference seems to have eluded me so far! I'd appreciate any help. Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 1 October 1874. See my reply at the article talk page. Nthep (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible LTA discussion at ANI
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § 82.22.44.102. FozzieHey (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Image link removal at British Rail Class D16/1
re British Rail Class D16/1 and the photo linked as 10000 on the scrap line at Derby

This link (formatted as a reference) has now been removed three times:
 * "Flickr is not a reliable source"
 * " it’s not a reliable source, period. See WP:UGC"
 * "If we're not using it for verification, then it's not a reference - contents in a ref tag is a reference. If it's a "nice image" that adds content, then add it as content to the article. However, it is NOT a reference, as it fails WP:RS."

Should it be included or not?

I would support keeping it. It may not meet WP:RS, we don't require it to. For one thing there is no policy on WP stating that all references must each meet WP:RS. They might not achieve WP:V if they don't, but it's not justification for removing them. The content "between withdrawal and scrapping, 10000 spent some time in storage at Derby" is already sourced, but there is also value in linking to a photograph showing this, especially as it also shows one of the Bulleids behind it. This is a photo at Flickr. If not for the lack of a free licence here, we'd place the same photo on Commons and embed it in the article directly. But we can't do that, this is our nearest option. The third removal here and its edit summary really is clutching at straws: "It's a reference because it's a reference" and also failing to appreciate the need for free licensing on images that we host ourselves (I can't claim that this image would meet NFCC given that we already have other images).

Your comments please Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not put it in the External links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrose64 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection to that. Using it as a footnote would be a possible too. But we deprecate inlined ELs and the 'external media' template has always been clumsy.
 * What I'm still not seeing here is how the suitability of the link (which no-one has presented any real argument against) seems to suddenly become unacceptable, just because of the format by which it's used. That's stretching WP:RS far beyond any real purpose it was ever intended for. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with 's perspective here. I think a citation needed template is appropriate, as that indicates that the statement needs a citation to a reliable source. As you've said, the statement "between withdrawal and scrapping, 10000 spent some time in storage at Derby" is already referenced, and I'm not sure what else the photograph could be used to reference without relying on the WP:UGC description. I don't see any value in having two citations for the same statement in this case, especially when one is not an WP:RS. You mentioned that the photo also includes the Bulleids, now I'm not overly familiar with this area of content, but if that's identifiable by the average reader, then that may add some value in keeping the reference. In my opinion, having an image included in the article as opposed to it being linked to, makes a major difference to the reading experience, so I'm not sure if that's relevant in this case. FozzieHey (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment what is wrong with linking the photo from an "external links" section? Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Should CTRL be put first in the lead or HS1?
Normally, regardless of the title, MOS:LEAD sections always contain the legal (possibly official) name first followed by the WP:COMMONNAME. So an article about Southeastern (train operating company) says While an article about a person will normally always display their real/legal/official/full name followed by the common name (article title) if appropriate.
 * SE Trains Limited, trading as Southeastern

I made this edit to HS1, swapping HS1 and CTRL before getting reverted. Is the case of HS1s alternative names different to Southeastern or Northern since these are companies (and will display their legal name not used in sources), but HS1 is a railway?

I also added Eurostar next to Network Rail in that edit. JuniperChill (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * HS1 isn't a company, so why? Where in MOS:LEAD is priority to legal names given? MOS:BOLDLEAD allows for the widely accepted name too, while MOS:LEADSENTENCE states that if the article title and legal name are related then the latter can be put first, like the UK's full name first at United Kingdom. TOCs probably refer to MOS:FIRSTCORP as it is a company, HS1 isn't. But have seen recent "official name-mania" being enforced across Wikipedia recently, so clearer guidelines are preferred. The infobox has National Rail not Network Rail, but if HS1 is part of another continental system would make sense to add something else too, but Eurostar itself isn't a "system"?  Dank Jae  14:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I made the decision to withdraw my plan to swap CTRL and HS1 in the lead, since I thought legal/official names always goes first like in the case of Southeastern.
 * I also got Network Rail and National Rail mixed up, but I might be able to add Network Rail in the operators section but why isn't it there yet or a good reason is why? JuniperChill (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither National Rail nor Network Rail are operators. Network Rail do not own or manage HS1, their only connection to it is that a subsidiary company is contracted to act as infrastructure manager and to carry out maintenance. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf, the actual parameter changed was  not the operators one. But tbh, even if Infobox rail line gives National Rail as an example that isn't really a system either? There really isn't one other than just the Great Britain railway system?  Dank  Jae  16:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Also, Eurostar is not an infrastructure manager, and is merely an operator that runs on the line) Turini2 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Southeastern (train operating company)
An editor has requested that Southeastern (train operating company) be moved to Southeastern (train operating company, 2021–), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You &#32;are invited to participate in the move discussion.. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:South Western Railway (train operating company)
An editor has requested that South Western Railway (train operating company) be moved to South Western Railway, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You &#32;are invited to participate in the move discussion. Jalen Folf  (talk)  19:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles backlog drive
As you may be aware, there is currently a drive to reduce unreferenced articles on wikipedia (WP:FEB24). The List of closed railway stations in Norfolk is one of the oldest unreferenced articles. It shouldn't be too hard to fully reference it, should it? Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC) I love adding references and it is one of my pet peeves of articles in general without references. Pardon my ignorance on this, but is there a list of UK railway articles apart from this one that need attention? GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has a copy of RVJ Butt would probably be able to source the whole thing. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get my hands on my Butt next week(!) — Voice of Clam (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick is more reliable than Butt and it's freely available on-line here There's a template Quick-stations-5.05 for it's use. Nthep (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but trying to find my Quick doesn't have the same double-entendre — Voice of Clam (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * you didn't fancy a quickie in Norfolk then? :-P Nthep (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As the first contributor of a book reference to the list, I've gone with sfn for book references. I've had a look at Quick, and it seems pretty comprehensive. A number of different sources is better than relying too much on one source. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please could you give the specific pages, rather than the same range for all of them? You'll see how I did that for the Butt refs. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - that is a chapter entitled "The Marriott's Way". However, the relevant info is on the first two pages. Refs amended. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone has at least one quick; I have twenty. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's an appropriate follow-up but I can't quite put my finger on it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is anything more granular than this, as these are not specific to UK rail, but the maintenance category Category:Unreferenced rail transport articles (and the related Category:Rail transport articles needing additional references) provide a starting point. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  14:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a typo in your username prevented the "ping" working. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is great thankyou and no need to apologize. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"route" parameter for services on station articles
Hi, @Skivermac16111994, has been massively changing the  parameter at rail line from the name of the line to the destinations of the line on station articles (mainly those starting with "H" for now). With some errors added along the way, for example they changed "Wirral Line (Chester branch)" and replaced it with "Hooton - Liverpool Lime Street or New Brighton or West Kirby" (trains don't go to the latter two from Hooton), as well as "South West Main Line" replaced with "London Waterloo - Weymouth". Just raising due to the scale of the edits, but could be justified, but consensus first? Although using the destinations may require more maintenance and accuracy. The examples at rail line state the company and rail line (e.g. Great Western Railway Cherwell Valley Line ), not the destinations I believe?

Some of their edits local to me have some errors, there may be more due to how many, but likely good faith! Thanks  Dank Jae  22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised at Skivermac doing this; I've constantly caught them making similar unreasonable edits at List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom, both logged in and logged out. Regardless, yes, there needs to be a consensus for changes that affect historical names of train lines and other such names. Jalen Folf   (talk)  00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I’ve seen them doing it on station articles starting with F as well such as on Four Oaks and Five Ways. Unfortunate that they don’t have a user or talk page. JamesVilla44 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless you are an admin, or have a valid alternative account, it is not a crime to not have a user page: this merely means that the user hasn't created one yet. It is also not a crime to not have a user talk page: this merely means that the user hasn't yet been sent any messages. But I don't know why you say that they don’t have a ... talk page - User talk:Skivermac16111994 has existed since 08:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC). Anyway, if you have concerns over the user's activities, send them a helpful message, observing WP:AGF. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn’t see the talk page, thank you for pointing that out. That solves the concern I had that I wouldn’t be able to use a talk page to send them that helpful message. JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi James, any user will receive messages if you create a talk page for them when they don't exist. Although it does in this case :). Rcsprinter123   (pitch)  22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if a user talk page doesn't exist, you should always be able leave messages. The only time that you can't will be if the page is protected; and that is extremely rare for user talk pages.
 * Depending upon your skin and other preferences, a non-existent page may show preset text reading " " plus a button which may be clicked.
 * Whether you see that or not, you should still see an "Add topic" tab (or equivalent, like "New section" or "+") between the "Create" and "Tools" tabs; and even if you don't have that either, there will be some kind of "Create" or "Edit" tab near the top. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Levenmouth opening
I've updated the main project page but I will not have time to do the stations. Can someone update Cameron Bridge railway station and Leven railway station (Fife) that according to STV, the opening date will be 2 June 2024 for the whole line? STV report. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 12:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I've done it myself afterall. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Title of Southeastern (train operating company, 2006–2021)
I asked if another title would be suitable. Please respond to that articles talk page and not here. JuniperChill (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC) (not an official RM btw) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuniperChill (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ultra (rapid transit)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ultra (rapid transit) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Severn Valley Railway map
I have proposed that the map in the Severn Valley Railway article should be edited to remove the excessive detail north of Bridgnorth so that it correctly reflects the subject of the article, the heritage railway. Please respond to that article's talk page and not here. Robin84F (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sheffield–Lincoln line station query.
Within the last year, a contributor had added Sturtom (shown in red) that was situated between Gainsborugh North Junction and Clarborough Junction, east of Retford. Quick shows it opening on 11th July 1849 and closing on 2nd February 1959. That line section was once part of the Sheffield and Lincolnshire Junction Railway.

Would it be possible for a Wikipedia article be opened on this station, as at the age of 79, such matters are beyond me.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅, but as Sturton railway station. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Related XfD discussions
East Midlands Mainline (RfD) and EMR Regional (AfD) are up for discussion. Please see the pages for links to the discussion pages respectively JuniperChill (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image captions
Following some back-and-forth editing on GWR loco classes, I started this thread on Talk:GWR 4073 Class (hence the GWR joke). I have moved it here as suggested by, to get a wider perspective. For reference, here are links to WP:CAPTION and - specific to Infoboxes - MOS:CAPLENGTH: note the distinction between succinctness and brevity. Also pinging.

Can we come to some consensus about what infobox image captions should contain? It may be assumed that the image represents the subject of the article, but a caption that just says (in effect) 'This is a picture of ' isn't adding anything helpful. Also, clicking through to the image page will give more information, but not every reader knows that or wants to interrupt their reading of the article to do that. In relation to locomotives, I suggest: These are my opinions, which I think do not conflict with any rules or guidelines. Agree or differ as you feel moved. -- Verbarson talkedits 19:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even though 'all GWR locos look the same' (joke), there were detail differences between members of the same class, therefore it is not only interesting, but useful, to know which specific loco is pictured. (I personally dislike pictures - eg many calendars - that do not identify the loco.)
 * Individual locomotives were modified over time, so knowing the date of the picture is relevant. (Also, locos in preservation, while providing better pictures in many cases, may not be representative or may have modern modifications.)
 * The location is not needed, unless it is significant to the loco (eg Caerphilly Castle at the British Empire Exhibition in 1923)
 * Absolutely "GWR No. 4079 Pendennis Castle at Didcot Railway Centre in 2023" (which it was, but then reverted). Or even "4079 Pendennis Castle at Didcot Railway Centre in 2023" if we want to be as minimal as viable, because the rest is obvious and implicit, but its identity as Pendennis Castle is relevant and of interest to the reader. More so, in fact, than it being at Didcot, or in 2023 (AFAIK 2023 isn't a significant year for it). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2023 is relevant, being the year it's overhaul was completed and its first return to steam after its return from Oz. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then in that case, 2023 definitely belongs (even if the reason isn't expanded in the caption). Andy Dingley (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Though, as you say the reference to Didcot is superfluous. I'd recommend "4079 Pendennis Castle in 2023" as a succint caption. The GWR bit can be taken as read as that is what the article is about. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say it’s worth having a broader discussion about infobox captions instead of just focussing on the one example… would it be worth deciding on some kind of “standard” format? Danners430 (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Problem with a "standard" format is that each example is context dependent. In the above example; you don't need the reference to GWR as the article is about a class of GWR locos. However use in another article might make the identification as a GWR loco relevant. The guidelines at WP:CAPTION and MOS:CAPLENGTH should be sufficient for most purposes. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now embodied at WikiProject UK Railways/Guidelines -- Verbarson talkedits 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Greater Anglia on the Fen line?
I've opened a discussion about an issue anonymous users created on the Greater Anglia article. See Talk:Greater Anglia. Jalen Folf  (Bark[s])  17:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Edits by Skivermac16111994
I know this is not the place to be discussing user problems, but has anyone else been noticing problematic editing by this user, specifically in edits to railway stations, TOCs, and List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom that might seem like nonsense? I've already given them a final warning about using edit summaries, since all of their edits don't use one, but I'm not inclined to send them to an administrative venue. Does anyone have any opinions on this issue? Jalen Folf  (Bark[s])  19:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've noticed similar issues where the user is making unexplained edits to pages that in many cases, involve introducing incorrect or nonsense information to articles. I've done my best to correct as many as possible but I do wonder if potential administrative assistance could be beneficial due to their continued failure to comply? Aaroncrudge (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already warned them of WP:CIR, but it looks like they didn't get the memo. I won't be opposed to administration taking notice. Jalen Folf   (Bark[s])  22:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that may be the best/only option now. We've all tried to warn them on multiple occasions which have all been unsuccessful and we shouldn't have to be correcting and reverting edits that are damaging the articles impacted. I'd definitely support administration getting involved if we agreed it was the best option. Aaroncrudge (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed as concerned, per the discussion above (now archived).  Dank Jae  12:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think on the basis of the opinions shared so far, involving administration to take action sounds like the best option given the users comtinued disruptive edits. Aaroncrudge (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The user has resumed editing over the last two days, at least one of which was reverted due to being unsourced. Danners430 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

County Durham stations at AfD
You can find the link here:. Covering Demons Bridge railway station, Simpasture railway station, Stillington railway station and Saltersgate Cottage railway station and if they are notable for an article each. 20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If anyone has some decent NER material which could bolster these articles, could you please add the references? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Multi-lingual nameplates
Following edits by @Anamyd over at, what would be the consensus on multi-lingual nameplates on trains? 197001 and 197004 carry nameplates which are in both Welsh and English… should we keep the Welsh text as well as the English translation, given that’s what the nameplate physically says, or should we only keep the translation?

Asking here because it would probably be best to make a decision to standardise this for UK trains. Danners430 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Dual language nameplates are nothing new, Some class 47s had them, eg 47772 Sir Gwynedd/County of Gwynedd. the inimitable Ian Allan ABCs always showed both, I think we should do the same. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Assuming that a mention of any kind is WP:DUE, then we should stick with what the nameplates say (or what sources say the nameplates say)
 * If the nameplate is in Welsh then we should include the Welsh name, if the English translation can be verified then we can include that too.
 * If the nameplate is bilingual (or the loco/unit carries nameplates in both languages) then we should include both languages.
 * If the nameplate is in English only then we shouldn't translate it to Welsh unless there is some particular and verifiable reason to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We should show what is actually on the nameplate. If appropriate, we may also mark up Welsh text using . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We should show both languages if they are given equal prominence on the nameplate. Of course, there is GWR's HST version to consider. Some had English on one plate and Welsh on the other! Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree too, seems a logical procedure. Concerning the 197s, in that case we should show both names in both languages, especially as some sources do too . The Welsh should be minimally tagged as Welsh using lang, and the Welsh can be in parenthesis afterwards, unless it is argued to be a dual-name used in English (which it likely isn't). The Wrexham AFC-named trains' nameplates show both names in equal prominence on the nameplates, doesn't appear to be a translation as TfW uses the English name in its announcement, and the name isn't exactly a translation of the Welsh.  Dank Jae  18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * so for the latter two at British Rail Class 197 should it be something like:
 * or similar to the current, Welsh first and then English? In the end, this is English Wikipedia, non-English names are usually second unless the common.  Dank Jae  18:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the two names have equal prominence then English first as this is the English Wikipedia, if they aren't equal then put the most prominent first. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf. I am guessing here they are equal? I believe so. Even if Welsh is above the English on the plate, that is standard on bilingual signs in Wales. Would an unequal scenario be like the English name being smaller, italicised, descriptive or in parenthesis on a nameplate? (or sources)  Dank Jae  18:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've not seen pictures so I'm not offering an opinion about whether this one is equal or not, but one language being smaller or in parentheses would definitely be examples of them being unequal. Italics, a different font or colour would depend on context. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf, for two here, TfW (right side) has some of their own images, I assume they were the final versions as now used on the actual trains. In this case an example of equal?  Dank Jae  19:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd go with them as equal, yes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd go with them as equal, yes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

New titles for Northumberland Park (x 2)
Hi - not a controversial move, but I want to check the logic is correct and when this should be carried out.

Two stations in England will soon have identical names and National Rail functions. The Northumberland Line is about to open (summer, according to their website), so there's likely to be much confusion between these two – in fact, on my way here online, I found one when searching for the other:


 * Northumberland Park railway station in north London
 * Northumberland Park Metro station in North Tyneside (note: not in Northumberland)

From Naming conventions (UK stations), the first is a "railway station" solely (no Tube), the second will be titled a "station" due to hosting both railway and Tyne & Wear Metro (as Sunderland station and Heworth Interchange do). The renovation of the North Tyneside station isn't major: an extra platform and line beside the existing Metro - see p12 here and photo here - so not really enough for a separate article as Central Station Metro station has.

In Talk:Northumberland Park Metro station, suggested the above name-change and/or adding regional identifiers - I would also favour adding regions to each name. Neither station is significantly larger, "Northumberland Park (railway) station" without context can mean either one and would be confusing, as I found, and there's much precendent for a further disambiguation, such as Halifax station, Stirling railway station, Davenport railway station, Fairfield railway station, Clifton railway station.

The Naming conventions (UK stations) guideline says to clarify using country name (England) or "County/local community, for cases where the station name is ambiguous within the same country". So, in this case, I would use:


 * Northumberland Park railway station (London)
 * Northumberland Park station (Tyne and Wear)

* Ceremonial county may technically be Greater London; in practice we already have Sydenham railway station (London) and Richmond station (London). Both Northumberland Parks have 250–350 links on Wiki, but most seem to be in Templates that would be easy to edit.

Am I missing anything? And when should any changes be put into effect? The Northumberland Line isn't ready to start operating yet, and Northumberland Park won't be among its first stations to open.

Thanks, 1RightSider (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would leave the page names alone, and put a hatnote at the top of each one, as I did at the top of A Parcel of Rogues (album) and Parcel of Rogues (album). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that leaving the London station as is, moving the Tyne and Wear station from "Metro station" to "station" and updating the already present hatnotes is all that is required here. With one at the "station" title and both other options already unique there will no longer be a need for the existing dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the Tyneside station really a primary topic for the term "Northumberland Park station"? If not then it should probably remain a dab. Certes (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It will be the only article correctly titled that, and being an interchange between networks will be the more significant. A dab page means that nobody will arrive at the correct article first, whereas with the article at the base title some people will and everyone else will be only one click away. Putting it all together, I don't see a justification for not having the Tyneside station at the expected title. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, hold on. Northumberland Park, Bedlington and Blyth Bebside have all been delayed until either October 2024 or until 2025. We might not need to move these yet. News reports are only saying Seaton Delaval, Newsham and Ashington will be ready when it first opens. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 11:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * How about Blackpool North station and Birmingham Curzon Street station if the tram also serves the station? Will we rename it to those names after the tram extension opens for both? I saw this happen to Wolverhampton station, initially Wolverhampton railway station. Does it have to go thru WP:RM/TR or a proper RM? JuniperChill (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the tram and railway stations are sufficiently integrated that they are considered the same place (I don't know off the top of my head in either case) then they can just be moved (via a WP:RM/TR if necessary) if there is nothing the new title is ambiguous with. If the new title would be ambiguous then a normal talk page discussion to decide the best title followed by an RM will be fine in most cases. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, with Stratford International station, the National Rail and DLR stations are not connected (ie, being able to walk between the two without passing a gateline) but its a trip across the road. Same with Blackpool North. Therefore, it is safe to say that Blackpool North and Curzon Street will be renamed to remove 'railway' possibly without a proper move discussion. JuniperChill (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A similar conundrum exists with Haymarket railway station (which is an interchange with Edinburgh Trams) It should really be at Haymarket station (Edinburgh), or similar in my opinion. I moved it once years ago, but someone moved it back incorrectly to railway station. G-13114 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Haymarket is a railway station which lends its name to a tram stop and some bus stops in the road outside. Certes (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Besides, various sources are suggesting the initial stations will open in August. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 15:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Renaming Haymarket railway station to Haymarket station (Edinburgh)
A discussion is in place regarding the renaming of Haymarket railway station. Discuss this over at Talk:Haymarket railway station JuniperChill (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Shore and Pier Head stations on the Southend Pier Railway
User:Davidstewartharvey is tentatively proposing at Talk:Shore railway station and Talk:Pier Head railway station (Essex) that these articles should be merged into the main Southend Pier Railway article. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 15:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested moves for Template:SWT Stations and Template:TSGN and SE Stations
Users from this WikiProject are encouraged to join the Requested move discussions at Template talk:SWT Stations and Template talk:TSGN and SE Stations. Jalen Folf  (Bark[s])  02:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)