Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

message: I asked if another title would be suitable. Please respond to that articles talk page and not here. JuniperChill (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of [[Southeastern (train operating company, 2006–2021)]] 

message: *
I know this is not the place to be discussing user problems, but has anyone else been noticing problematic editing by this user, specifically in edits to railway stations, TOCs, and List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom that might seem like nonsense? I've already given them a final warning about using edit summaries, since all of their edits don't use one, but I'm not inclined to send them to an administrative venue. Does anyone have any opinions on this issue? Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 19:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed similar issues where the user is making unexplained edits to pages that in many cases, involve introducing incorrect or nonsense information to articles. I've done my best to correct as many as possible but I do wonder if potential administrative assistance could be beneficial due to their continued failure to comply? Aaroncrudge (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already warned them of WP:CIR, but it looks like they didn't get the memo. I won't be opposed to administration taking notice. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 22:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think that may be the best/only option now. We've all tried to warn them on multiple occasions which have all been unsuccessful and we shouldn't have to be correcting and reverting edits that are damaging the articles impacted. I'd definitely support administration getting involved if we agreed it was the best option. Aaroncrudge (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed as concerned, per the discussion above (now archived). DankJae 12:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I think on the basis of the opinions shared so far, involving administration to take action sounds like the best option given the users comtinued disruptive edits. Aaroncrudge (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The user has resumed editing over the last two days, at least one of which was reverted due to being unsourced. Danners430 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Skivermac16111994 

message: Following some back-and-forth editing on GWR loco classes, I started this thread on Talk:GWR 4073 Class (hence the GWR joke). I have moved it here as suggested by , to get a wider perspective. For reference, here are links to WP:CAPTION and - specific to Infoboxes - MOS:CAPLENGTH: note the distinction between succinctness and brevity. Also pinging .
Can we come to some consensus about what infobox image captions should contain? It may be assumed that the image represents the subject of the article, but a caption that just says (in effect) 'This is a picture of <subject>' isn't adding anything helpful. Also, clicking through to the image page will give more information, but not every reader knows that or wants to interrupt their reading of the article to do that. In relation to locomotives, I suggest:
* Even though 'all GWR locos look the same' (joke) , there were detail differences between members of the same class, therefore it is not only interesting, but useful, to know which specific loco is pictured. (I personally dislike pictures - eg many calendars - that do not identify the loco.)
* Individual locomotives were modified over time, so knowing the date of the picture is relevant. (Also, locos in preservation, while providing better pictures in many cases, may not be representative or may have modern modifications.)
* The location is not needed, unless it is significant to the loco (eg Caerphilly Castle at the British Empire Exhibition in 1923)
These are my opinions, which I think do not conflict with any rules or guidelines. Agree or differ as you feel moved. -- Verbarson  talkedits 19:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Then in that case, 2023 definitely belongs (even if the reason isn't expanded in the caption). Andy Dingley (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: *:Though, as you say the reference to Didcot is superfluous. I'd recommend "4079 Pendennis Castle in 2023" as a succint caption. The GWR bit can be taken as read as that is what the article is about. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I would say it’s worth having a broader discussion about infobox captions instead of just focussing on the one example… would it be worth deciding on some kind of “standard” format? Danners430 (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem with a "standard" format is that each example is context dependent. In the above example; you don't need the reference to GWR as the article is about a class of GWR locos. However use in another article might make the identification as a GWR loco relevant. The guidelines at WP:CAPTION and MOS:CAPLENGTH should be sufficient for most purposes. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Now embodied at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Guidelines#Infobox locomotive image captions -- Verbarson  talkedits 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image captions 

message: I have proposed that the map in the Severn Valley Railway article should be edited to remove the excessive detail north of Bridgnorth so that it correctly reflects the subject of the article, the heritage railway. Please respond to  that article's talk page and not here. Robin84F (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Severn Valley Railway]] map

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ultra (rapid transit)#Requested move 29 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  ASUKITE 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Ultra (rapid transit)#Requested move 29 April 2024]] 

message: Within the last year, a contributor had added  (shown in red) that was situated between Gainsborugh North Junction
and Clarborough Junction, east of Retford. Quick shows it opening on 11th July 1849 and closing on 2nd February 1959. That line section was once part of the Sheffield and Lincolnshire Junction Railway.
Would it be possible for a Wikipedia article be opened on this station, as at the age of 79, such matters are beyond me.
Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , but as Sturton railway station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sheffield–Lincoln line]] station query. 

message: East Midlands Mainline (RfD) and EMR Regional (AfD) are up for discussion. Please see the pages for links to the discussion pages respectively JuniperChill (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related XfD discussions 

message: 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:
* Northumberland Park railway station in north London
* Northumberland Park Metro station in North Tyneside (note: not in Northumberland)
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,  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New titles for Northumberland Park (x 2) 

message: I've opened a discussion about an issue anonymous users created on the Greater Anglia article. See Talk:Greater Anglia#Operation on Fen line?. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 17:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater Anglia on the Fen line? 

message: You can find the link here: . Covering Demons Bridge railway station, Simpasture railway station, Stillington railway station and Saltersgate Cottage railway station and if they are notable for an article each. 20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has some decent NER material which could bolster these articles, could you please add the references? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  County Durham stations at AfD