Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 4

message: I have created a set of categories around :Category:Railway stations by year of disestablishment with individual years such as :Category:Railway stations closed in 1964. The strucuture exactly matches that used for the existing :Category:Railway stations by year of establishment. I have already created a couple of dozen individual year categroies, but if you find yourself needing a new one, the links that you need to put in your new category page are:
:
:Category:Railway stations by year of disestablishment
:Category:1961 disestablishments
:Stations closed 1961
Then change the three years and one decade to the correct numbers.
This has created a problem in the Decades in rail transport categories as the sorting on the open stations is coded as
:Stations 1961
This really needs to be changed to sort as "Stations opened 1961" etc. Can this be done by a Bot? Geof Sheppard 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disused stations by year

message: hi!
I was looking at the number of pages without this template:  (edit: using  here so this page is not listed as unassessed. Slambo (Speak) 11:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the effort in adding the project banner to rail transport related articles.  I add it to applicable article talk pages as I come across them.  I've been working through :Category:Unassessed rail transport articles for some time now adding this template's parameters as appropriate, but the work load seems to increase faster than it decreases.  While I have no disputes with bot-tagging appropriate articles, I would like to request that project members take some time to assess a few articles periodically.  Right now there are 1,371 articles that do not have a quality assessment.  The general importance parameter is used to indicate the article's importance to rail transport on a worldwide basis; project specific importance ratings have been created for some related projects, and we can easily create a set of UK-importance categories here too.  Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 11:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about everyone else, but I find it hard to assess most railway articles - with "importance to rail transport on a worldwide basis" as the criteria, virtually every loco article other than Rocket and Mallard (and possibly Olton Hall) are of virtually no importance on a worldwide basis; ditto for every TOC (historic and current) other than the GWR, and virtually every station apart from a couple of major hubs like Waterloo, a few of particular architectural significance, and the earliest Underground stations. I seriously think we should consider either splitting our assessment criteria away from TWP's or adding a second assessment line so, for example, Birmingham New Street can be simultaneously of low worldwide significance but of very high UK significance —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can easily add a UK-specific importance tag like is currently done for others such as WP:NYPT (see Talk:A (New York City Subway service) for an example).  Are there any objections to adding a UK-importance parameter? Slambo (Speak) 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you hadn't gathered from the above, I strongly support the idea —  iridescent (talk to me!) 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been doing a lot of UK (and NZ) tagging with TWP mainly in the south. The scope is vast (what 2,000+ stations alone) so I've not got very far. The UK-importance rating thing is a good idea, the London transport project (formerly tube) have it and i think it works well. Pickle 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope to have the new parameter working in the next day or two; my current plans are to put in some time testing things either today or tomorrow.  I'm also watching another discussion at WP:NZR that could affect this.  Optimal would be to add appropriate parameters for both projects at the same time to reduce the number of times the template is updated, but there's less surety about the parameters over there (current discussion relates to which picture should be used as the project icon). Slambo (Speak) 12:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely anything that helps accelerate the processing of articles must be a good thing? EdJogg 10:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought.  I've got the basic Unknown/Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA class levels working in my test area now.  How about all of the other class options (List, Category, Image, Redirect, Template and Disambig)?  Once I'm ready to push this update live, I'll create the category structure to go behind it. Slambo (Speak) 11:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please, they are better than just NA Pickle 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok made Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Assessment, anyone want to conjure up some good examples for the top, high, middle class of importance from the UK. Pickle 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template updates are live and the categories are getting populated now.  The class parameter will sort the article into the appropriate subcategory of :Category:UK Railways articles by quality, and the new UK-importance parameter (which is only used if UK=yes is set) will sort the article into a subcategory of :Category:UK Railways articles by importance.  I'll have the template documentation updated soon... Slambo 42 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template TWP 

message: I'm surprised I've only just noticed this section but looking back through the page history it seems its been there since the project was started in April 2006. Whilst I am sure this is well intentioned, I am slightly concerned about it and feel it should probably be discussed. I don't feel it is appropriate for named editors to adopt articles in this way. I would be concerned that this could leave  some editors with wrong impressions about article ownership.
In the past, some editors have seen the wording of WikiProject banners along the lines of "This article is maintained by..." as some claim that a particular project has or should have a higher influence over the content of the article. This has led to many banners being reworded to what I feel is a more appropriate wording that refers to the article being within the scope of the project.
I do of course welcome editors focussing their efforts on a particular article to try to improve it but feel that there shouldn't be declarations of articles being adopted. I would of course like to hear others opinions on this issue. Adambro 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quote right. Andy Mabbett 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, someone   ^^^^  always comes along and spoils things. Canterberry 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So you mean it should be more a case of fostering an article, perhaps? Regards, Lynbarn 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the wording on .  It says that the named editors are knowledgeable and active in editing a specific article and that they can be contacted for further assistance while not being "owny". Slambo (Speak) 15:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe move it off the main page into a subpage, with lists for "Articles we're actively working on/intend to work on" and "Articles we're watching"? That would solve the problems I assume it was originally meant to address, of two people simultaneously expanding the same article without others' knowledge, or of fifteen people vandal-watching Manchester Victoria and no-one watching Manchester Piccadilly, while not looking so much like particular editors are claiming to WP:OWN the articles —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Adopt an article" 

message: Following recent announcements of a proposed new line between London and Birmingham, possibly as an extension of Eurostar, i have created (briefly) an article on High Speed Two. Simply south 14:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Speed Two 

message: Does someone with better graphics capabilities than me want to create a replacement for :Image:Central Citylink Route map.gif?  It's a copyvio, so will have to be deleted.  --RFBailey 09:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did it depict? (It's been deleted so I can't look at it). Afterbrunel 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Citylink route map 

message: Due to its history or expressed opinions, I believe that this wikiproject would be interested in a Sprawl Control Proposal currently in development. Please note that the idea is not deletionist, and advocates retention of all suitable material, by current definitions. If you oppose the idea in principal, please do not attempt to discourage its development. The intent is that all views may be integrated into a proposal that may achieve the stated aims and be acceptable to as wide an audience as possible.
It is thus felt that it is particularly important that relevant wikiprojects participate in the formulation of the proposal.
This invitation template was placed by: SamBC 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your proposal has some merit, but needs a good deal more development.  The railways project does need some more control and structure, but other than that I do not currently believe that it is poor in respect of "sprawl".  My own observations are that unnecessary articles do get removed/merged/renamed and on the whole the project is quite well behaved. Wikipedia, is a "living and breathing" thing, and any attempt to use "sprawl" as some means to control the development of the railways project would not gain my support. Canterberry 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please understand, the invitation isn't meant as any sort of criticism. just that this community might be interested. SamBC 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I felt no criticism, and like I said, I think the idea has merit. I think I may have been misunderstood. The railway project is still under development, and yes it may suffer from some sprawl, but (hopefully) nothing too serious.  The project does need an injection of structure and better control, but it there is still much to do (will probably always will be), and so I would hate to see "sprawl" used until the project is a little more organised and a little more mature. I think the term "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" applies. The railways project needs to be "tighter" ... but does it suffer from sprawl?  Maybe, but is that just a sign of "teenage angst" and "growing pains" rather than something more serious that requires the attention of a "surgeon" ... which is what I consider "sprawl" to mean. Canterberry 21:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I think I understand, I'd just like to point out that the proposal is directed at a much wider 'problem' or audience than this or closely-related projects. Input on the proposal's pages would be very much appreciated, speaking to the proposal as a whole. SamBC 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation/Information 

message: I have proposed a redesign of the templates Template:British Rail Locomotives, Template:British Rail DMU and Template:British Rail EMU.
The proposals can be found on the relevant talk pages: Template talk:British Rail Locomotives, Template talk:British Rail DMU and Template talk:British Rail EMU.
I would appriciate comments, opinions and suggestions. Cheers, --Jorvik 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Rail templates redesign 

message: Hi!
I am creating a new newsletter for WikiProject UK Railways!
You can see a sample of it at User:ACBest/Newsletter1!
Please register your interest below!
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Cheers! ACBestAutograph Book 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter