Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2006, 2

message: What are your thoughts about standardizing articles to use gauge templates? We've had  in our template collection for a while, and I've recently added several templates for the commoner narrow gauges. I've been replacing non-templated gauge references with templates in articles as I come across them. I think this gives us a standardized look to railway articles, but I'd like to hear what others think about this.
In particular this brings up the issue of imperial vs. metric units. The gauge templates have both, usually in the order: imperial then metric. Some articles list gauges the other way around, or just have one or the other. I know that people have strong opinions about this, and I don't want to make changes that others object to. My personal feeling is that if the gauge was originally imperial - for example, standard gauge - then quote it as imperial then metric (), for metric gauges like metre gauge, do it the other way around (1000 mm (3 ft 3.3 in)) Thanks, Gwernol 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, when I see standard gauge listed like the template output, I will substitute the template usage in its place for consistency.  Please add the other gauge templates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates and add Category:Rail transport templates (like on ) to the templates themselves. Your note about which measurement units come first presents an interesting question.  It seems that we should also have  to show the output as 1435 mm (4 ft 8½ in). Slambo (Speak) 17:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've added the Rail Transport templates category to my narrow gauge templates - they are already listed in the article templates. Gwernol 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Slow down here and let's reach a consensus first.  Making unilateral changes like this has proven detrimental to the project and to individual editors in the past (take a look at the history of changing between BC/AD and BCE/CE units for years; see 1, 2, 3 and many others).  I think the guiding document here is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).  The source documents that we're dealing with for American railroads are written almost exclusively (at least those in my own reference library) in Imperial and not metric units, therefore, we should list Imperial units first when we're writing about American railroad subjects. Slambo (Speak) 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unit conversion often leads to loss in accuracy and certainly a loss of some original information - e.g. designs done by someone using customary US measurements will often use 'round numbers' in that system, which become arbitary and meaningless amounts after conversion.  The present status quo is perfectly fine and should be retained, and any numbers that do not have conversions should have them added. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The present status is: state one time "metric (imperial)" and the other time "imperial (metric)". IMO this is poor quality. This leads to Exploration of Mars#Spate of failures. Slambo, it is just a measurement, you have to calculate with it, and it is not a religious thing like "BC". And therefor a worldwide standard exists. But Morven, i think you are right, rounding wrong would also be poor quality, but i would consider this a different topic. --FlyIn 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: morven, you end up with things like 3ft 3 3/8in (1000 mm) (example take from rail gauge), and with setting standard gauge to something us specific (the us are just a small part of america) you make articles like the london underground, DBAG_Class_425 inconsistent. here we always joke about rail gauge (the article itself) beeing an example of imperialism ;) --ThurnerRupert 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though I like the idea of http://us.wikipedia.org, most english articles have imperial measurements as source because metric measurement is so little used in the UK. Because there are articles on rialways/railroads from all around the world which at some point another use metric or imperial, I've created a 4ft8in template so that editors of articles on subjects which have sources that use imperial measurement can quote imperial first whilst the standard gauge template can be used for articles which have sources that use metric (say German or French railways). This is probably the best way to have both kind of sources quoted accuratly and removes the possibility of disputes. Enjoy, Captain scarlet 08:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best solution would be for the primary measurement to be in the system in which it was measured. Therefore standard gauge would be noted in feet/inches because that is how it is specified. Mangoe 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has already been solved as there is :Template:Standard gauge and :Template:4ft8in available for whichever measurement system you use: imperial, or metric. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gauge Templates? 

message: The 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings article has been listed as part of WikiProject Trains. However the, 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings are not. I don't know much about Wikiproject trains so I'll let you all decide whether Mumbai should be removed or Madrid and maybe London should be added. Nil Einne 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter is the case, and they are now.  Thanks for the heads-up.  Slambo (Speak) 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mumbai bombings 

message: Looking at :Category:Locomotive engineers, I find that it actually lists locomotive designers. Could we consider renaming this to something internationally intelligible? "Locomotive engineer" has an extremely specific meaning in the USA and of course utterly in conflict with this (why isn't Casey Jones on the list?). Mangoe 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm changing this to :Category:Locomotive designers starting tonight unless someone objects very soon. Mangoe 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No you're not. — Dunc|☺ 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off we go to a request for a category name change. Mangoe 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Mangoe, it cannot stay as "locomotive engineer" as that's misleading in several countries. I like the "locomotive designer" alternative you proposed and have said so at the CfD. Gwernol 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Locomotive engineers 

message: Talk:Moscow Metro it seems that Moscow Metro is (un)fortunate enought to have one line that is officially denoted not by number but by a symbol. One user managed to keep a conflict and an edit war going on that has resulted in being the order in which the column with numbers appear in. Also helpful is his exreame stubborn approach. Can I ask that some more people come and help put a 100% FA article article out of misery. --Kuban Cossack  17:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request mediators or anybody really on a VERY silly conflict

message: There have been some comments about a task force structure for WikiProject Trains made in various talk pages.  I've collected some of the ideas presented into a central location.  Personally, I think it would be helpful for us to adopt a task force structure for further rail transport subtopic specialties.  Please take a moment to review and discuss these thoughts.  Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a suggested list of seven possible task forces to start with.  If you haven't already, please take a moment to review the discussion and add your comments.  So far, I haven't heard any objections, so I hope to start implementing these ideas this weekend.  Slambo (Speak) 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hearing no objections, I've created two of the suggested task force pages.  Now it's getting a little late around chez Slambo, so I'll come back to this in the morning to finish up where I left off. Slambo (Speak) 01:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been two weeks since I started adding the task force tags into , and I haven't seen anyone complaining, so I'm assuming a tacit acceptance of this proposal.  I'll add in the other proposed task forces this week. Slambo (Speak) 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a little late to the party here, but I just wanted to chime in that I think the task force structure is a great idea.  --CComMack (t•c) 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: WP Trains task forces 

message: As part of an attempt to clean up links to impossible dates, I've nominated Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/February 30 for deletion, since it's unlikely ever to be used. — sjorford++ 09:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Result: the subpage was speedy deleted. Slambo (Speak) 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal page for deletion 

message: Anyone has interest in Chinese passenger rail service? It is now the largest passenger rail service in the world, and it is still quickly expanding. However, the articles about it in wikipedia now are nothing better than a doodle. I wish more people can share their information about it and help improve the quality and coverage of this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Changeup (talk • contribs) . 07:56, August 3, 2006
:That's how much of the US coverage here was about two years ago when I joined in.  I've noticed many more news items coming from that corner of the world, and I'd love to read more about it; I just don't have as many references for Chinese rail service as for other areas. Slambo (Speak) 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Passenger Rail Service 

message: The article, Ghost Station has just been created. Can it be moved, deleted, redirecting so it may be Wikified an a bit more to the point. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged with . Slambo (Speak) 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like another editor did the merge today. Slambo (Speak) 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nicely done. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ghost Station]] 

message: Nothing to do with railways, I'm afraid, but this item did remind me of a ghost motorway!   As a youngster, I vaguely remember a photo of a partially-built autobahn flyover in West Berlin, that stopped in mid-air, as it approached the wall.  Did this really exist? Where was it? Has it now been completed?  
Some years later, in 1982, I did briefly visit West Berlin, but didn't see it then, and forgot to ask.  
regards, Lynbarn 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ghost bridge? 

message: Does this bot only cover "rapid transit" as well as "trains" WPs? Many of the metro articles around th UK are "UK rail" articles as well. On, for example the LU, the DLR and the Glasgow Subway (not sure what shorthand is for this) Simply south 10:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just spotted it on my morning look through my watchlist.  It's re-tagging a great many articles that are already tagged, so I've begun looking through the logs for those that are listed as moved from X to Unassessed.  The template supports listing several projects in each instance, so for these I'm just combining them into the one that is already there with a rating.  I won't have a lot of time today since I'll be riding the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad (photos will come later, maybe Monday).  It looks like the bot is still running since the Unassessed category is only up to the Ds now. Slambo (Speak) 12:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it okay that i have been addung "UK rail" to some of the metro articles in the UK? Simply south 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will almost always include UK=yes if the subject of the article is in the UK.  For example, Talk:Paddington station shows both Stations=yes and UK=yes since it applies to both. Slambo (Speak) 13:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot has now removed many of the tags, including the parent project's on many of the tube and DLR pages. Simply south 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betacommandbot 

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential rename to Category:People in rail transport 

message: Hi, I am starting a new project called Underground. It helps bring all London Underground related articles to its best. Trains, depots, people, stations and lines. Hope you find this an interesting break-of of your project. Lenny 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project 

message: In reading some of the articles concerning locomotives types (eg 4-6-2, 2-8-2) I feel the combination of both tender and tank locomotive examples into the same article on wheel arrangement creates a degree of misinformation. For example, the articles on 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 discuss the purpose of the trailing axle to support a large firebox that is positioned behind the driving wheels. This is not true of a 4-6-2T or 2-8-2T tank locomotive, where the the firebox is either above the driving wheels or between the frames, and the trailing axle is there to support the weight of the coal bunker. If anything, a 4-6-2T has a more similar design to a 4-6-0 than a 4-6-2 (indeed, I can name locomotive classes where a 4-6-2T variant was directly derived from a 4-6-0 tender locomotive). 
Could we consider revising the organisation of these topics such that we provide a separate page for any tank locomotive variants (eg the current 4-6-2 is split into 4-6-2 and 4-6-2T?) I appreciate this would probably represent quite a lot of work, both in restructuring existing articles, and also knowing all of the various tank engine types to add to the Whyte type category box.
:Hmm, an interesting thought, and one that I'll need to sleep on.  My first thought is that it might not be such a bad idea as long as enough new information could be added to the tank locomotive articles that is different from the tender locomotive articles.
:On the  template itself, I'd been thinking about ways to reduce its overall size since it is already quite large.  While it's easy to link to two different articles in one string (such as 0-4-0T), the resulting display on selected pages might not be optimal (to continue the example, it would display 0-4-0T on 0-4-0 and it would display 0-4-0T on 0-4-0T; that might prove confusing to new readers).  If we're going to write separate articles for each tank locomotive type, it seems to make more sense to create a second, smaller navigation template for tank locomotives. Slambo (Speak) 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whyte types - should we differentiate between tank & tender loco? 

message: John Bull (locomotive) is listed on the main page today in the selected anniversaries section, so it may see some increased activity, including vandalism, today.  Taking a quick look through the rest of the September anniversaries, Stockton and Darlington Railway will appear on Sept 27. Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page anniversaries 

message: WikiProject Underground needs some more members to make the project usable. So I hope you dont mind me added a note next to the link to the project, after all we are still part of your project. Thanks Lenny 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drums please

message: It seems that a new consensus is being made on the Good article guidelines to bring it more in line with current Featured article guidelines.  Specifically, inline citations may become a requirement very soon.  That means that many of the articles that we currently have listed as Good trains articles will be delisted because their references are not inlined.  While many of the current list use inline citations (such as on California Southern Railroad or Bay Area Rapid Transit) others list the references only at the end of the article (like CF7 or Grand Central Terminal).
What does this mean to us?  It means we need to work through the GA list and get them up to snuff pretty quickly if we want to keep the majority of articles on the list.  It also means that we need to get into the habit of using inline citations on future work to make the path to FA easier for those articles. Slambo (Speak) 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. I've been slowly converting some of the British narrow gauge articles to use inline citations, this will give me even more incentive to work on this. Gwernol 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the correct protocol for correcting these articles with regard to inline references? Is the onus on the original writer (particularly those articles that have made heavy use of books or other non-online content in their references) to correct them? Or could someone else simply pick a topic, find a reputable source for each key point that needs referencing, and then update the article with inline references? Zzrbiker 02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good articles and GA requirements 

message: Hi, I'm a member of WikiProject Oregon and I keep running across references to the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company aka Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company, and I just wanted to see if any of you fine train people wanted to work up a short article on it. Thanks and happy editing! P.S. please move this request if there is a better place for it. Katr67 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oregon Railway and Navigation Company]] 

message: I've just added the pages and template changes for Trains project-specific peer reviews.  Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review to participate.  These instructions are modeled after similar structures in other WikiProjects. Slambo (Speak) 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've started it off with one as an example.  Slambo (Speak) 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project task: Peer review