Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:UKRail)

Shortcut

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:

From Wikipedia: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, @Difficultly north 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 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Disambiguation 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)[reply]

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). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

UK heritage railway articles

I'm interested in people's views on UK heritage railway articles. From a general browse, they seem to be very inconsistent from one railway to another, with a lot of outdated / trivial / unsourced information. Before attempting any bold editing, I'd like to ensure I'm not going to make things worse!

1) What are the views on "current status"? Much of the loco information is unsourced, let alone the wagon information that appears on some pages. My view is that much of it is non-encyclopedic, and of limited interest.

2) Should pre-preservation history be in a separate article, or combined?

A few examples to illustrate, from a random survey of some of the more established / longer lines:

- the Severn Valley Railway rolling stock article is well referenced, and contains only key information - this is my personal preference for such articles. However, the article on the railway itself seems a bit unsure as to whether it's attempting to cover earlier history, preservation, or both - and some sections (e.g. the 2007 landslips) seem a bit excessive.

- the East Lancashire Railway article barely even mentions rolling stock / locos etc. The article limits itself to the preservation era.

- the West Somerset Railway article covers the entire history of the line, with the preservation era a relatively minor part of that. It has a separate rolling stock article, which to my mind has too much trivial unsourced information.

- as a volunteer, my main interest is in the Watercress line. I'd like to improve their pages, but in my opinion, they have the most issues!. The main article refers to a separate earlier history page, but then repeats much of that information (under an inaccurate heading). There is a separate rolling stock article, which attempts to record the current status of wagons (surely doomed, and almost all unsourced). However, possibly uniquely, there is also a page of locomotives formerly resident on the line - which even tries to record the current status of those - even more doomed to failure (the Severn Valley version just includes a brief bulleted list on the rolling stock page, without current status). To add to the complication, the Watercress line also has an incidents article (unique again?). Finally, the main railway article is illustrated by photos of "Tornado" and the "Sans Pareil" replica! (which I'm happy to change to something more recent and representative, but which show the number of issues to be addressed).


Forgive my rambling, I'm still a relatively new editor, this is the first time I have posted on a project page and I'm still not fully up to speed with the multitude of WP policies etc.. I want to improve some of these articles (starting with the Watercress line), but want to know if there are any general thoughts on what should / shouldn't be present. I would discuss any particularly bold editing suggestions on the individual article talk pages.

Mwsmith20 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, many preserved railway articles are a mess and could do with a radical clean-up. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that any stock information derived solely from the heritage organisation itself should not confer sufficient notability for a mention in an article. I know that this is a different issue from the stock being notable enough to have an article of its own, so perhaps a lesser level of notability should be applied. But if we rely solely on an organisation's own website/publications, we end up duplicating their stock list (and trying to keep it up to date) and that is not an encyclopedia's job. We should leave it to them. There are enough reputable railway magazines and websites for any truly notable events - restorations, new builds, significant steamings (dieselings?!) and other celebrations - to be covered by independent sources. -- Verbarson  talkedits 19:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a summary of a railway's stock is more encyclopaedic than a stock list. I'm not sure how best to summarise though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a separate article for the line while it was open then the heritage railway article only needs a brief summary. If there isn't a separate article then the heritage railway can usefully have a longer description of its history.
As for rolling stock, I'm happy for us to list the stock but without "status" information or other short-term matters such as livery. Things that change frequently get out of date easily and these are the things that are often uncited too. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses - it's good to know that they are all similar to my views. I've found @Geof Sheppard's recent edits to the West Somerset Railway rolling stock page to be particularly useful - the amount of info against each entry seems to strike a good balance. I also like the approach of only stating when "previous residents" left the railway, and where they went from there, but not attempting to document any later history. The detail will obviously vary from one railway to another - some might have keen WP editors, others not at all. Ideally any lists need to be up to date and cited, or kept to a minimum. Mwsmith20 (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An important point with "previous residents" is that the list needs to be kept to just that. I have spent a lot of time in various railway's pages weeding out short-term visitors. Some editors have added gala visitors or a seasonal loans, even through workings on railtours. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree totally, lists of short term and gala visitors quickly get out of date and very cluttered (in the unlikely event that they are fully referenced). They are also of interest to a very small section of the population, who probably get that information from elsewhere anyway. Mwsmith20 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a locomotive spent a full season at a particular railway that might be worth including on the article about the loco (if it has one), but I agree it's not worth a mention on the article about the railway. Something short of a season shouldn't be mentioned anywhere unless something noteworthy happened during the visit - and unless it's significant enough for the RAIB or ORR to take an interest it's again more likely to be relevant to the locomotive's article than the railway's. Exceptions to the latter might be something like hauling the first train on the railway (or extension) during preservation (which could be notable for both). Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was mentioned above, the Severn Valley Railway article is fundamentally about the preserved railway, hence my recent proposal to edit the map to reflect that. It's one of those heritage railway articles which includes the pre-preservation history rather having a separate article, mainly because the original "Severn Valley Railway" was in reality just a GWR / BR branch line, usually referred to as the "Severn Valley Branch", for all but a few of its 101 years. As such, the commercial history section is not overly excessive in my view. However the 'infrastructure damage section' could certainly be shortened/moved into the preservation history section, and the 'extensions to the railway' section could also go – it's a mixture of history and old proposals that won't happen. Any other views welcome, if not I'll do my proposed map edit and tidy up the article at the same time when I get a chance. Robin84F (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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#Requested move 10 June 2024 JuniperChill (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Engineering diversions, July 2024

Further to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 56#Engineering diversions last October, Slowmetal17 has resumed their campaign, and this time is being WP:POINTy about it. Have a look at their recent edit summaries (informing previous commenters - Danners430, HJ Mitchell, Mjroots, Thryduulf). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee! Danners430 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted at least one so far, I'll keep an eye on. As an aside, I thought templates worked in edit summaries? Danners430 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No (see H:ES#Edit summary properties and features, fifth bullet), and that is intentional - otherwise an edit summary could potentially be as big as the biggest article ever, and then some. There was a bug in an early release of WP:Flow ten or so years ago, where it was possible to put a template into an edit summary - and it caused chaos until it was disabled. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to edit war with an admin! Where's the key to the case my banhammer is kept in? Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That explains why I couldn't easily ping you in my edit summary... although I admit I was being a little cheeky! Danners430 (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East West Rail project newsletters

I have opened a discussion at talk:East West Rail#Project newsletters on whether or not WP:ELNO should apply to the engineering consortium's public information newsletters. Please contribute there. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation hatnotes

Discussion moved from Talk:TransPennine Express due to the discussion going beyond just a single page, and being relevant to other UK Railway pages Danners430 (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the article for a week due to edit warring. Warning: A discussion in a new section on this talk page must occur to establish a consensus for any further edits regarding the disputed content. An editor making another change without such clear consensus is likely to be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging both @Weshmakui and JuniperChill to this discussion, as it pertains to the hatnote above the article. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 07:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I was thinking about deleting the disambiguation page for TPE given that there is only one primary topic and two other topics. After that failed (and which I withdrew), I changed the hatnote to lead directly to the two former TOCs so that readers do not have to go thru a disambig page because its only two former TOCs. They can do so in one click and not two and the hatnote is just a single line. That is my proposal.
The user is new, but has also reverted my edits to Class 755 and Class 360 which I (tried) to make a primary topic redirect to the UK rollingstocks but are both under discussion with 755 about to close. This user also didn't provide an edit summary when reverting my latest changes which should be done as its not vandalism.
And as a side note, maybe TransPennine Express franchise should be created at some point, like with Greater Western franchise, East Anglia franchise and ScotRail (brand). JuniperChill (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record - I was also involved in the Class 360 discussion... which honestly I disagree with, but haven't really gone anywhere on it. Not relevant here however. Danners430 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(To add from my previous comment), I think reverting should only necessary if its to remove vandalism or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. My edit on changing the hatnote so that it links directly to the two rather than via a dab may be an improvement (it definitely is to me) but definitely doesn't lower the quality so its at least neutral. JuniperChill (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is however worth taking note of WP:BRD - if a bold change is made, there's nothing wrong with reverting it and starting a discussion so that a consensus can be reached. In my opinion, if there's a content dispute, then the status quo should remain until consensus is reached either way Danners430 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read BRD again. That page, and other discussions, point out the obvious, namely that every edit needs justification. Only revert an edit if you have a reason to disagree with it. Do not revert because you think a discussion should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that edits need justification. I am disagreeing with JuniperChill's assertion that reversions should only be for vandalism - there are many other reasons why reversions would be used with good reason. But we're getting away from what this discussion is meant to be about. Danners430 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did say 'or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article'. But as others above states, we should move back to stating about which hatnote to use: either the current one (to dab page) or the proposed one (which links to the two former TOCs directly). JuniperChill (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JuniperChill, you are entitled to make bold edits, but if reverted then the onus is on you to make the case for change. In this case (and the Class 360 and Class 755 redirects as you brought them up) you attempted to make changes to things that had been in place for some years and worked perfectly well. The TransPennine Express (disambiguation) hatnote has been in place on this article for over a year, you launched an AfD and then withdrew it, so please don't restore your version as if the AfD was successful.
The saving clicks argument is not particularly strong. The Virgin Trains article is an example as to why disambiguation hatnotes should be used, as prior to Virgin Trains (disambiguation) being set up, we had this long winded one. Weshmakui (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that links to four pages (not including the two erroneous ones(. The Virgin Trains hatnote is far too long but its doable if it only links to two other pages as in this case. Its literally only two other topics. Indeed, take a look at Great Western Railway which has/d a hatnote to the modern TOC, the Great Western Mainline, and the dab page. JuniperChill (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the discussion isn't purely regarding TPE, but really about multiple pages and their DABs, should we perhaps up sticks and move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways so that a broader discussion can be had? Danners430 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think me and Weshmakui are using VT and GWR as an example regarding dabs. Maybe the Wikiproject should be notified about this since we still havent had a discussion from uninvolved editors JuniperChill (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last comment, there has been an edit made to another page - CrossCountry - to remove most of the DAB hatnote, and replace with a simple "not to be confused by". I've reverted this as I feel it's not an improvement, and is also the reason why I have moved this discussion to this page so that a wider discussion about article DAB hatnotes can be had. Danners430 (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junctions

I wonder if I could ask for any thoughts re a Wikidata problem I'd like to try to tidy up.

Currently there are two different Wikidata items (corresponding to two different sets of articles across multiple wikis) that have the label "junction" or "railway junction" in English -- which is a recipe for confusion and mis-allocation. Can anybody suggest a better a label and/or description for one or both of the following, that would make them more distinguishable ?

The two items in question are:

  • railway junction (Q336764) (currently: "junction" = "place at which two or more rail routes converge or diverge") -- a rail junction, most commonly in the middle of nowhere, where a railway line diverges, the whole track configuration amounting to perhaps no more than two points and a crossing. The article Junction (rail) is linked to this.
  • railway node (Q24045957) (currently: "railway junction" = "railway structure where multiple railway lines connect") -- according to an explanation given to me on Wikidata Project Chat, at least as used in German and Czech, this is for a significant node on the railway network, eg perhaps somewhere like Reading or Crewe or Doncaster or Dijon, that may include one or even more than one station (eg Prague), freight yards or facilities, etc., with perhaps hundreds of points across the object in all. Not currently linked to any article here.

If anyone can suggest any ideas for better names and/or descriptions that would do more to distinguish these two very different concepts, that would be really helpful. Thanks! -- Jheald (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that these are actually distinct concepts - the two differ only in the scale of what other things (different concepts like goods facilities) are located nearby. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata has some unusual ideas about scaling and singularity, that aren't necessarily going to be agreed upon here. Nthep (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It seems to be a rather artificial distinction between the abstract (two tracks/routes diverge) and the practical (passengers or goods need to join the right train for their chosen destination). Even if there is a junction 'in the middle of nowhere', there will be a prior station or goods depot where the choice of train for the right destination has to be made. Both are necessary to make a useful junction.
I suggest that either the two Wikidata items be combined; or possibly the first item could be simplified down to the basic idea of a railroad switch (aka turnout or set of points)? -- Verbarson  talkedits 08:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata's just following the lead of the other language projects; the German Wikipedia (for one) makes this distinction has separate articles. Mackensen (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switches are a separate Wikidata item, railroad switch (Q82818). Nthep (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everybody for all the above.
I have also pinged the question to ChatGPT, and it came up with "railway hub" = "significant point in the railway network with multiple connected lines, stations, and facilities, often a major transit hub" for Q24045957, which I am minded to go with. That looks on the face of it a reasonable definition for cs:Železniční_uzel_Praha, and I think gets over the idea of a feature on a larger scale than a principal station.
I do have some sympathy with what User:Thryduulf has said, but I think the starting point has to be User:Mackensen's comment -- if there are wikis that have this concept, then there needs must be a wikidata item for it, the freedom we have is what to name it and how to describe it.
Looking at what wikidata items are currently an instance of Q24045957 (query), there are currently 60 cases, of which 22 are in the UK and 26 are in Canada. Of the UK ones all should probably be instances of Q336764 instead, and that probably goes for most of the rest too.
Per Thryduulf, there is a sliding scale here, and it would pretty subjective to have to assess what would qualify as a "railway hub" and what wouldn't. Fortunately though it's not an assessment that's really going to be needed much (which the fact that very few items have been tagged with this for non English speaking countries is a strong indication of). For most places, it will be entirely satisfactory just to tag them as being a railway station, or if not that then a railway junction. But Q24045957 "railway hub" will be available for features with a wider footprint than just the station or a junction.
Hope people think I've got this right, per the international articles attached to railway node (Q24045957). Thanks to all for your input. Jheald (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, having looked again at more of those international articles, I've updated the label/description to "railway node" = "significant point in the railway network which may encompass multiple connected lines, stations, and facilities, often a major transit hub" -- since they seem to be mostly maybe not indicating something on the scale of a full "hub". Jheald (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways&oldid=1233569847"