Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 6

message: I have been requested to start a task force on Routemap Standardisation. After inconstancies and contradictions were raised on the route diagrams talk page. Are there any interested users?--Lisa666 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im interested.  I do agree that the route maps need sorting out. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a general warning, you've biting off a big mouthful here (see the archives) - if you can find a standard format that would encompass Brighton Main Line, Docklands Light Railway and Metropolitan Line - not to mention lines like M&GNJR that loop back on themselves, have branches that cross over their own mainlines, and are currently partly disused and the open parts owned by multiple companies, good luck... —  iridescent (talk to me!) 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, any distances should be in the form the railways use, coupled to the UK standard for transportation distances and not any arbitrary use of 'ISO' units. I would also suggest you read what has been said in the article/sub section you cite, reading any referenced users or articles so that you obtain an overview of the previous discussions and consensus. (SouthernElectric 20:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Try asking the user that "requested" you to set it up in the first place. Surely they would have given you all the advice needed, and based that decision on your suitability to do it (i.e. had shown the attitude/aptitude to do it).Canterberry 08:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task Force 

message: In case anyone is not aware, see possible mergers at Talk:List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom#Merge proposals and Talk:List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom#Merge proposals (revised) Simply south 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers 

message: Anyone have any idea where DrFrench is?? He used to be a regular contributor, and a voice of reason. He has not made a contribution to WP since the middle of July. I trust that he is well. Not like a regular to stop making contributions without saying so, or that they are taking a break. Canterberry 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr French

message: Merge proposal: Virgin West Coast into Virgin Trains. See Virgin Trains talk page for details and discussion. --Jorvik 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgin Trains merger 

message: Merge proposal: British Rail Class 57/0, British Rail Class 57/3 and British Rail Class 57/6 into British Rail Class 57. See British Rail Class 57 talk page for details and discussion. --Jorvik 11:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it looks like they should all be merged into the one article but then merged with the  British Rail Class 47 article (with a redirect from previous articles), they are hardly a different locomotive, just a derivative of the 'Brush Type 4' - a bit like the various boilers fitted to the LNER A3 class - the same locomotive just fitted with a different power-plant. The two classes, 47 & 57, are linked by a common history and should be considered together. (SouthernElectric 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Rail Class 57 merger 

message: I was just wondering whther an article should be created detailing all of the future NR projects and other such proposed schemes. Or is there a problem about WP:CRYSTAL? Simply south 12:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think WP:Crystal is a problem as long as the future line has officially been confirmed.  WP:Crystal tries to stop articles which are speculative.  Tbo 157(talk) (review) 12:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright but do you think an article should be created (insert word here) the projects etc on NR? Simply south 12:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't quite understand your question above. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 15:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, surely any project that has been officially given the go-ahead is no longer a future project?! It's gone from being 'speculative' to actuality, of course the project could still flounder (eg. the 1970s Channel Tunnel project) but then any article started would still be a record of fact... (SouthernElectric 16:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got a cite for the proposals, then you can certainly describe them here. Whether they come off or not, the fact that the proposals had been officially announced would also be a matter of fact. EdJogg 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above.  If there is a reliable source and a project has been officially confirmed, then I think it can have an article.  Is this what you mean by, "Alright but do you think an article should be created (insert word here) the projects etc on NR?".  As I said above I wasn't too sure on what the question meant.  Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future 

message: Thanks ever so much for using my HST pic for the projects navigation template! I only just noticed! ACBestDog and Bone 11:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW! 

message: This small stub article is about Stalinist Communism and the Ffestiniog Railway, subjects that are not, I'm sure, normally considered together.  
Is the subject of "Deviatinists" and The Llyn Ystradau Deviation (there is a section in the Ffestiniog Railway article) worthy of an article of its own? Some before, during and after images would also be of use to illustrate this marathon ground breaking (literally) and inspirational effort. Perhaps there are some ex-deviationists among wikieditors?  Regards, Lynbarn 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am certain that no sane person looking for information on the construction of the Ffestiniog Railway would use "Deviationism" as their search term. Since the topic is already covered perfectly well at Ffestiniog Railway#The Llyn Ystradau Deviation, I say delete the railway-related material altogether without even a disambig link. You might want to slap a  on the remaining one-liner while you're at it. —  iridescent (talk to me!) 23:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, an article on "Deviationists" is needed; and Deviationist is a term that I recognise in respect of the Ffestiniog Railway. However, Deviationist is merely a redirect page and the text that aught to be in it is in Deviationism. Possibly, the Ffestiniog text should be moved into Deviationist and the Stalinist Communism left in Deviationism.Pyrotec 08:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Deviationism]] 

message: The discussion here has gone quiet: what do people think of my latest proposal?  I think it more-or-less concurs with much of an earlier discussion which was never acted on.  --RFBailey 04:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train operating company articles 

message: While working on my crusade to expand the South West England station stubs I have found myself looking at the impact of community railways and rail ale trails in particular.  I know that these are no longer peculiar to Devon and Cornwall, so if you can add anything to the new page then please do so. Geof Sheppard 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the offchance, i keep finding a website which seems to do it on the Tarka Line in Devon. Simply south 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rail ale trails

message: Using Special:Prefixindex I found the following subpage to this project:
Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL
The last edit (other than fixing dates on a tag) was made on March 30 2007. Is this page still in use by someone? If not, should it be marked as historical, or deleted as an unused subpage? Jorvik 10:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant subpage?