Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2007, 3

message: All, I've significantly overhauled the internals of s-rail and s-line. This was prompted by discussions with the folks in Australia, and a desire to integrate their color/formatting scheme into the existing system. The result is that s-line now has two modes of output–standard and "AUS". You can see examples of both at User:Mackensen/Flarp. In order to make the colored borders join properly I've re-designed both templates to function without s-start; new instances should use  instead. The second table on /Flarp demonstrates the new versions of s-rail and s-line with the old s-start; as you can see only AUS-formatted templates break (and not badly, at that), so there's no need to go round replacing s-start with s-rail-start at the moment. The switch from standard to AUS formatting is accomplished via  and the export parameter. This is more of any FYI than anything; I invite everybody to check the code at User:Mackensen/s-line and User:Mackensen/S-rail. If there are no objections I'll merge changes in 24 hours or so. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the time to investigate further, but it appears that the changes adversely affected the articles in :Category:RTA Rapid Transit stations. Switching to s-rail-start has no apparent effect (on preview, at least). I'd appreciate it if somebody could take a look. - EurekaLott 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed it. The problem was actually unrelated to all of this:  created a malformed style template (. I've fixed it. Mackensen (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thanks for the prompt repair. - EurekaLott 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template overhaul 

message: Rail transport in India, August 16, 2007 UTC
Congrats to all of those who put together this excellent article.  --Oakshade 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Front Page featured article! 

message: The page Subway is a disambig page, which contains a link to Subway (rail), which redirects to Rapid transit, as does Metro.  However, it seems to me that this page should be not a redirect, but should be an article on its own.  The redirect makes it seem as if the terms "subway" and "metro" are interchangeable with "rapid transit," however a subway or metro may not be rapid transit, and vice versa.  Most subway and metro systems are rapid transit systems, but systems such as the Newark City Subway, SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolley Lines, and the Los Angeles Metro Blue/Green/Gold Lines are not (first two are trams, the ladder are light rails).  At the same time, systems like the RTA Red Line (also known as "The Rapid") and the Miami-Dade Metrorail are both rapid transit systems, but not subways.  A subway is basically an underground rail system, which may or may not be rapid transit.  In fact, the world's first subway, the MBTA Green Line, is neither rapid transit as well.
I think that the redirect should be removed, and the Subway (rail) page or the Metro page should be an article, with sections giving brief explanations of various types of subways/metros (including a  link in each section), including rapid transit, as well as trams, light rail, people movers, etc.  I think the Subway (rail) page should hold the article, but to keep a worldwide point of view on this topic, some may prefer that Metro is used instead.  According to the page's history, it seems as if it was always a redirect page and never had an article.  I'm willing to write the article, but I wanted to get feedback first so I can avoid any potential edit wars. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the articles should stay exactly as they are. The fact that the Newark City Subway is called a "subway" (which, BTW, it's not any more -- it's "Newark Light Rail" now, since the Broad Street extension) doesn't mean it's a subway in the generic sense. The Los Angeles Gold Line isn't a metro, a subway, or rapid transit, and it isn't called any of those things, so I'm not sure what was the point of including it in your examples. Subway as a generic term always refers to rapid transit, the fact that some rail lines that are not rapid transit are underground notwithstanding, even if they are called "subways." Trams, light rail and people movers already have their own articles, and none of them are subways (in the generic sense of the word "subway"). --Tkynerd 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A "subway" is not necessarily underground (New York City Subway), nor is an "elevated" necessarily above-ground (Chicago 'L'). I agree that the current status works. (By the way, the Green Line is not the first subway; I believe the London Underground is. --NE2 03:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the MBTA Green Line: it was the first subway in the U.S., but not the first in the world (that was, indeed, the London Underground). --Tkynerd 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, thats what I meant—the MBTA Green Line was the first subway in the U.S., not the world.  Therefore, Subway (rail) should change from its redirect to Rapid transit, if not have its own article, than it should at least be redirected to Rail terminology or something, but its present redirect goes against WP:NPOV. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. While the Green Line tunnel is generally referred to as a "subway," probably simply because it was the first transit rail tunnel in the U.S. (where the term "subway" originated as a term for rail transit), ordinary people (i.e., not railfans) understand the word "subway" to refer to rapid transit. The redirect is appropriate and should be left as it is. And I perceive your reference to WP:NPOV here as a bit overdramatic. --Tkynerd 12:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Subway (rail)]] or [[Metro]] should be an article, not a redirect 

message: Recently s-rail/s-line was introduced to Transperth, Transwa, Great Southern Railway, and CountryLink networks (all in Australia). As part of this conversion the "AUS" export style was devised for these templates, allowing for two entirely different output formats within the same basic structure. You can see the difference at User:Mackensen/Flarp. Now, there has been a proposal to convert the CityRail articles as well, but disagreement over the formatting method. I should emphasize that it's trivial to switch between standard and AUS, so as long as the idea of s-rail/s-line is accepted we're most of the way there. At User:Mackensen/Flarp is an example of Central railway station, Sydney, with a full s-rail/s-line implementation. At the moment, CityRail outputs in the "standard" form. If you look at CountryLink, you get an idea of what the "AUS" display would look like. Comments welcomed. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The setup was agreed upon a long time ago - partly because it helps distinguish the intercity and suburban line colours which you can't do in the s-line standard template. We should not go against that. I'm fed up with having to defend it every couple of months just because one particular user doesn't like it. I'm quite happy to adopt the s-line template, but we should keep the colour scheme as is. JRG 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can move there if you like. I left at note at WikiProject Sydney inviting those editors as well. I personally don't have a stake in formatting--I'm interested in the information presented. Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's ok if there's a link. I've removed my objection to the place. I just don't see the point of changing something that's worked for a long time - but I'm happy to change the template for ease of formatting. JRG 01:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've switched the formatting style so you can see what it looks like. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Yuk, the colours are too garish IMHO. I prefer the original version. I'm all for consistency across Wikipedia, this goes against the look in articles like the London underground etc. Who cares if you can't distinguish InterUrban colours and suburban colours, there are just extensions of the same line after all. Its time for a change.Quaidy 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the London Underground has to do with this, I have no idea - Cityrail is organised differently from the London Underground and the colour coordination needs to reflect that. The intercity lines are not "just extensions" - they are separate services and need to be distinguished as such. I don't think there's any reasonable argument for change. JRG 03:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to qualify these comments as I just took a look at the Flarp page above - I would agree with Quaidy that it looks more garish than the existing pages do. My suggestion which I have already made to Mackensen is to try this: use the coloured bars as in the original version, but add the borders as are used on the CountryLink boxes. But we still need to differentiate intercity and suburban services. Any suggestions? JRG 03:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * What London underground has to do with it is that I think a bit of consistancy for the looks of rail networks across Wikipedia is of value. But that's just my opinion and I am OK with nice disagreement, please be civil. I'm not so sure we should differentiate between colours for inter-urban and suburban, otherwise do we differentiate between the 'hashed' line style that is used for the Sydenham peak services on the East Hills line etc as well? We are only taking colours here, not merging the line boxes into one- Central Coast will still have a separate box to the Northern etc. The suburban and Interurban lines are not stand alone and self contained lines anyway- there has always been a degree of overlap between them- with peak hour extension of North Shore services up the Main North, and occasional suburban services drifting down the Illawarra beyond Waterfall. Its only been recently that Cityrail has changed the interurban lines to the grey with the coloured blobs for stations. Who knows what they will do next week. The other think I was thinking of is for the City Circle having a single box, treating it as its own line, similar to this for Circular Quay, once the code gets fixed:




Quaidy 05:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They don't really terminate - the map just does that for ease of use. The services actually keep going, most terminate at Central and proceed empty to a turnback at Macdonaldtown between the Illawarra and Inner West lines, some just "swap" between lines (eg. Airport Line trains become South Line trains, Inner West trains become Bankstown Line trains). That's the way it is in reality, and is portrayed at the moment. Town Hall and Museum have no terminating facilities at all - it's just portrayed that way on a map for ease of use for passengers. JRG 04:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's better - but notice that when you double up termini the blue square is still on the right. I think it's better to just have separate boxes for all lines in the right colours. JRG 04:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CityRail templates 

message: Over at WP:NYCPT, we are trying to reach a consensus on how New York City Subway stations should be named, because the subway system uses various names and punctuation formats for its stations, and users have "move-warred" articles in the absence of an agreed-upon guideline. The proposed convention is at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention. If you are interested, please visit the proposal and comment on the talk page. Thanks! TLK'in 07:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York City Subway station naming convention 

message: Is there a task force I could join to help out with adding route diagrams to articles?  I looked at the maps group, but it didn't really seem like the right place.--Max  Talk [ (+)] 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the talk at WP:TRAIL for some interested people, mostly it seams they are in the UK. The technology comes from the continent (mostly Germany) and it came along after the maps task force, and in most places relatively easily does the normal job the cartographers at the maps task force (i use and then remove the map needed tag when a wp:trail map comes along). Pickle 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route Diagrams 

message: Somebody messed up the routeboxes by redirecting all Amtrak lines leading to Jacksonville, Florida, so they'd all end up in the former Union Station. According to that article, Jacksonville Union Station hasn't served any lines since 1974. How do I fix this? ---- DanTD 13:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jacksonville (Amtrak station)]] not [[Union Station (Jacksonville)]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bustitution --NE2 19:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: Before I throw this suggestion out tor Wikipedia's general merger page, I'd like to know how the rest of you feel about the possiblilty of merging both Marshall (Amtrak station) & T&P Depot, since the Marshall (Amtrak station) is housed in the T&P Depot. ---- DanTD 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marshall (Amtrak station)]] & [[T&P Depot]] 

message: This is odd. I made two recent changes to Westport (Amtrak station), one of them major. Yet when I looked on the list of recent changes they never showed up. Other changes to other stations did, though. What gives? ---- DanTD 01:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlooked change 

message: Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the  template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.
* 22 September 2007 - expires 27 September
** George tosh (PROD by User:HeartofaDog; PROD nominator states: "is this man notable?"  Excerpt: "Tosh is notable insofar that he was amongst the first railway engineers in the country to introduce coal-burning [rather than coke] fireboxes, fitted the first steel tyred wheels to British engines….") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: There are still two other station articles with routeboxes that I can't fix. Norman (Amtrak station) misdirects people to Union Station (Oklahoma City) as the previous station, when it should be directing them to Oklahoma City (Amtrak station). Also, now that the two Western Avenue (Metra) stations have been specified, Union Station (Chicago)'s routebox for the Milwaukee District/West Line should have Western Avenue (Metra Milwaukee District/North Line) as the previous station. I was trying to change the link to that specific station without changing the name in the routebox. How can I fix these two? ---- DanTD 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Routebox fixing 

message: I found out from TrainWeb that the Harvey House Railroad Depot & Western America Railroad Museum share the same building(http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/barstow.htm), which doesn't convince me that this is an unstaffed Amtrak staion. Would this fact justify a potential merger? ---- DanTD 01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough. But there are still employees at the museum which shares the same building, aren't there? ---- DanTD 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harvey House Railroad Depot]] & [[Western America Railroad Museum]] 

message: I was wondering, can we add optional National Register of Historic Places date, architect, and architectural style(s) parameters to the stations infobox, it would go a long way toward solving the relatively silly inclusion of two infoboxes on some articles. Thanks for your time.IvoShandor 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've addressed this issue before on previous occasions, and Mackensen has tried to merge the two for Sebring (Amtrak station) once, but it broke apart. I really don't think the inclusion is so silly when active stations are listed on the NRHP. ---- DanTD 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried again at Sebring; I think this solution will actually work. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I only wish I knew how your previous attempt to merge them fell apart, so we can prevent it from happening again.  ---- DanTD 17:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: An infobox is supposed to make two things happen, introduce uniformity to a type of article and make information easy for a reader to parse. Adding two of them contradicts both of these goals. It decreases uniformity and doesn't help the reader. What is the point of an infobox that appears below the lead, when all info that could be put in it should probably be in the lead to begin with. It just looks bad, which should be enough of a reason, as if Wikipedia doesn't look bad enough already, but since its not, those are my reasons. I have yet to be told of the benefit. The NRHP is a fairly minor designation, its pretty much honorary, and there are over 90,000 places on it, the extra infobox is totally unneeded, especially if a few items can go in the one already there.IvoShandor 20:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the case, how do you feel about the ones at Grand Central Terminal and Fort Worth T&P Station? Those two stations are both active and listed as NRHP sites, and Grand Central Terminal's infobox is strictly NRHP. If uniformity is the goal, then two of them together would be appropriate for articles that fall under both categories. ---- DanTD 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, if an article has an infobox already I just leave it alone. I am probably more likely to use the NRHP one if they don't have a box, but I don't add others or change existing ones, to avoid conflict mostly, and I really, really hate the way two of them look. Either way an infobox isn't completely necessary anyway, a lot of times it can make things more confusing, because they tend to encourage a way of thinking that depends on categorization, which isn't always possible. All relevant information should be provided in text, infoboxes are little more than visual extras and aren't really going to enhance an article to the point it seems to have been claimed on the Dwight station article. Most, if not all, article enhancing that is going on should be through expansion of the page, not through infoboxes. IvoShandor 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't hate the way the two of them look together, and that image you have of the old Dwight Amtrak station is nice. Appearences aside, being forced to choose one or the other tends to diminish the status of a station as a historic landmark, as well as the status of historic stations as active ones. I assume you saw Mackensen's experimnet of blending the two infoboxes as one, but back in in April 2007, Slambo suggested a whole new parameter for historic railroad stations(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2007%2C_2#T.26P_Station_Infoboxes), which would seem fine, but by itself you'd miss a lot of the details that the existing NRHP infoboxes provide. Around a month later, I brought this discussion up on WikiProject New York City Public Transportation(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_7#Template:Infobox_Station). Apparently, Tinlinkin tried nesting one inside the other, and it didn't work. ---- DanTD 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One other thing, the blank maps are reserved for editors who know how to fill them in. I don't know how to fill them in. ---- DanTD 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a big fan of those generic maps, I don't think they look too good either (as you can see aesthetics are something I consider, if things look bad they instantly have far less credibility; I suspect that this partially contributes to the public perception of Wikipedia as unreliable). I think the only way to really integrate this info is to just add additional parameters to the stations infobox (optional of course) that correspond to the NRHP box, keeping the look of the stations box and adding the additional parameters into the existing style. I don't know if the project here thinks its feasible or not. I would say that the NRHP box has some nice details, as well as some that don't add much (the ref number comes to mind immediately and I wish we would get rid of it). I do think that the NRHP infobox, sometimes, overemphasizes what is really a marginal designation that is often times the prelude to nothing, maybe demolition. As a whole other aspects of a building's history are far more interesting and significant to the overall picture of a building than an NRHP designation, which, as I said, is mostly nothing more than a honorary designation. If a station is a National Historic Landmark, I would have differing thoughts (this is slightly more significant). Anyway, these are some of my thoughts (and sorry if I initially came off harsh). IvoShandor 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well there is a Canadian Register of Historic Places, and Listed buildings in the U.K., but I don't think its really feasible to add national designations for hundreds of countries as parameters, unless someone wants to do that. IvoShandor 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be more feasible is adding a "listing date" parameter, or just adding the major ones (those three and a couple others?) and addressing any additional ones that come up as they come up. I would also like to see parameters like "architect" and "architectural style(s)" added too, if this possible, those shouldn't present any particular international problems. IvoShandor 00:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another article that has two infoboxes; Florida State Road 694. Part of the reason for the merging of two different infoboxes is that there have been duplicate articles of the same stations. One article listing them strictly as a railroad-related article, and the other one as an NRHP-related article. The Sebring (Amtrak station) was one example of this, but there has also been Deerfield Beach (Amtrak station), Union Station (Tampa), Dade City Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Depot, and others.  There's still the issue of the West Palm Beach (Tri-Rail station), which is the same place as the Seaboard Coastline Railroad Passenger Station. ---- DanTD 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox query 

message: There seem to be a lot of people in :Category:People in rail transport who should be in :Category:Pioneers of rail transport. People like George Stephenson for example. If he's not a pioneer then no one is! Does anyone know why? Budhen 18:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Pioneers of rail transport 

message: Is it even possible to create a sort of web ring for Wiki Projects? I was thinking of that as sort of a random article link but only for articles within the project. Much like those Web Rings everyone's familiar with.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp67 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise this is not exactly answering your question, but if you are looking for something to do, the articles Rail transport (aka 'railway' and 'railroad'), Train, and Rail transport operations have all been selected as essential articles for the CD version of WP, and none are currently above 'B' grade... EdJogg 07:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next! 

message: Although not an official member of the Trains Project or NRHS, I thought it was high time that Wikipedia had an article about the National Railway Historical Society, so I've just started it. JGHowes talk -  01:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRHS 

message: I was trying out WatchFlickr on :Category:Pennsylvania railroads the other night, and it came up with a whole slew of articles that didn't quite seem appropriate for that category. As it turns out, that tool delves recursively into categories, some of which are quite deeply nested. For instance, :Category:Amtrak, :Category:CSX Transportation, and so on, are all sub-categories of :Category:Pennsylvania railroads. This does not seem correct to me. The articles Amtrak, CSX, and so forth should be in the parent category, but the categories should not be subcategories of Pennsylvania railroads. While CSX itself operates in Pennsylvania, articles pertaining to CSX and hence in :Category:CSX Transportation do not necessarily have any connection to Pennsylvania. It is my intention, therefore, to remove Amtrak, CSX, etc. as subcategories of Pennsylvania railroads and place them in, say :Category:Rail transport in the United States, the most specific category still pertinent to all of the articles in the subcategory. However, as this seemingly excessive method of categorization does seem to have wide currency in Wikipedia, I thought I would solicit advice on this talk page first before going about things. If you feel the categorization is appopriate, please reply here. Choess 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying to agree with you. If category B is in category A, all the articles in category B should also belong in category A. However, note that :Category:Amtrak is already in :Category:Rail transport in the United States. --Tkynerd 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Amtrak also operates in Canada... so wouldn't the same apply as with the states? --NE2 13:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by that. Personally, I think Amtrak should only be in the state categories where Amtrak actually owns track, which would exclude all of Canada. But that's just me. :Category:Amtrak should not be in any of the state categories, as GE Genesis (to use one example) is not a railroad in any state. --Tkynerd 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about :Category:Amtrak being in :Category:Rail transport in the United States; the former includes some Canadian stations. --NE2 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks, excellent point. I agree with you. --Tkynerd 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: I think it is time to throw in the towel for the monorails task force.  No one has expressed consistent interest in my little pet project since its creation 8 months ago.  It's time for me to stop taking up wikipedia namespace.--MrFishGo Fish 13:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monorails task force 

message: (and subsequent pages) is a 1945 plan for transportation in Detroit. It includes the following:
*"It calls for modernization of equipment and rearrangement of the local motor bus routes on the city streets coordinated with trunkline operation of trains within the central mall of some sections of the expressways, two modern surface trunk car lines, four electric trolley bus lines and two express bus routes on the expressways."
*"Modern street cars would travel down the central mall of the Grand River Expressway from Southfield to West Chicago, where they would swing into Grand River and proceed on the street surface into the downtown section."
*"Where the street cars and electric buses reach the downtown area, they would dip below the surface, freeing the streets for vehicular and pedestrian traffic."
*"Street cars operating from a terminal at Southfield would furnish rapid transit service to West Chicago and Grand River, and local service from there to a portal at First. The project would include new storage yards and shops in the vicinity of Southfield and Grand River."
Would it be appropriate to do something like:
:The freeway would have included a "modern street car" line in the median.
Or would it be original research to call it light rail, even in only the link? I don't think it would qualify as the current definition of rapid transit, since, while that part would be grade-separated, the part on the surface of Grand River Avenue would not be. --NE2 13:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got it worked out in Interstate 96, but if anyone would like to check that would be great. --NE2 08:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kind of transit is this?