This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 30 May 2011

Archives

April – December 2006 January – April 2007 April – June 2007 May/June – July 2007 August – September 2007 September – October 2007 October – November 2007 November 2007 – January 2008 January – February 2008 February – May 2008 May – June 2008 June – August 2008 September 2008 – February 2009 February – November 2009 November 2009 – February 2010 February 2010 – May 2010 May 2010 – October 2010 October 2010 – January 2011 January – April 2011 April – June 2011 May 2011 – September 2011 September 2011 – January 2012 January - April 2012 April 2012 - February 2013 February 2013 - April 2013 April 2013 - September 2013 September 2013 - February 2014 February 2014 - June 2014 June 2014 - October 2014 October 2014 -

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

I was looking at some route diagrams and noticed the use of the wheelchair symbol for stations (eg at Marshlink Line), and wondered what the criteria are for using this symbol? Is it purely on the basis of full step-free access around the station (and presumably with ramp access to trains with assistance from train and/or station staff)? I also note that the infobox for underground stations includes two fields for access and access notes. Should these be added to the UK station infobox?

Looking outside wikipedia, there isn't yet a clear standard emerging in the operator route maps. For example, the East Midlands Trains route map reserves the wheel chair symbol for "Fully accessible station with full-time staff assistance", although other stations on the map do seem to have step-free access. Presumably they are also taking other things into consideration such as braille signage, induction loops etc. Robevans123 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As wikipedia is not a travel guide why do we need to include the symbol as it doesnt appear to be a notable feature that needs to be on route maps. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Icons like  (ACC) were uploaded to Commons over seven years ago, so they're not new. Perhaps people are saying "they're there, and they're not up for deletion, so let's use them". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree we should get rid of them. They're pretty meaningless unless it is specified exactly what they mean. And it is arguably too much detail for an encyclopedia, making it too much like a travel guide. G-13114 (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Route_diagram_template#ACC_symbols, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of them. Wikipedia is not a guide.Charles (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find "Wikipedia is not a guide" a very persuasive argument. Wikipedia dispenses information on things, and the accessibility of a station is a characteristic that I hope we do / think we should cover in an article. As to the ACC symbol, I reluctantly concur these should be withdrawn in the absence of a criteria/definition ... but would rather we worked towards a definition such that they can be used. As an opening suggestion, we might rely on the networkrail station guide, accessibility section, "Step free access coverage"=Yes. (e.g. [1]). I accept others will see differently on both points. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tube map has two symbols - a blue symbol (as {{bs-q|ACC}) for step free access from train to street, and a white icon for access from street to platform. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wheelchair symbols, even two of them, are a very crude indicator of accessibility - for example, London Bridge has step free access to both Jubilee and Northern lines but no step-free interchange between them (other than a ~400m walk along busy streets), Debden is step free eastbound but not westbound, Oxford Circus has step-free interchange between same-direction Bakerloo and Victoria lines but everything else invovles steps. Then you get stations like Elm Park that have a long, fairly steep ramp that is not step free but not accessible for some manual wheelchair users. See the separate and detailed step-free tube guide and avoiding stairs tube guide for examples from just one system. I don't see the wheelchair symbols as useful guides to anything in most circumstances at scales dealt with on Wikipedia, but there are probably some use cases. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the accessibility issue is something that would be better dealt with on the station articles themselves. I've noticed on some Australian station articles they put a wheelchair symbol in the infobox like here. Maybe we could implement a more developed version of that? G-13114 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness#ACC. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there was a TFD decision in November 2014 to merge the contents of {{Infobox closed London station}} into {{Infobox London station}}, I'm preparing to carry out that merge by making any article that uses {{Infobox closed London station}} use the main {{Infobox London station}} template instead. Most of the fields map over on a one to one basis, so there will be no visible difference. There are a couple of fields that don't have a direct match and I need consensus on how to transfer them.

As preparation for the merge, ceasing the use of fields on the closed London station template and using fields that are in the London Station template will make the transition smoother. The first example are the start and end fields.

The closed station template has start and end fields that are used to indicate when the station opened and closed. The London station template doesn't have these fields, it uses the years1/events1 fields instead. Some of the closed template articles use this method also. I'm looking for consensus to transfer all current uses of start and end to appropriate years/events fields.

e.g. Replace start = 1930 with events1 = Opened and years1 = 1930

I think this is the best route past this particular obstacle, and will help standardise the infobox code. This is an easy one to begin with, there are other more complex ones to follow. - X201 (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but it would be good to use the templates {{Start date}} and {{End date}}. As a side point, I wouldn't be surprised if {{Infobox London station}} is proposed for merger with the main GB template at some point. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding {{Start date}} and {{End date}} won't be a problem if you want them. - X201 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so long as it's being assessed on a parameter by param basis. I've seen TfDs merges go through with an assumption that since two templates have certain similarly-named params, they are necessarily used for the same purpose.

If {{infobox closed London station}} does get merged with {{infobox London station}}, one of them needs to change its default image size, since {{infobox closed London station}} uses 240px and {{infobox London station}} uses 280px (recently changed from 240px). These are both different from {{infobox GB station}}, {{infobox UK disused station}} and {{infobox UK heritage station}} which all use 265px. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the section below, because as you rightly point out, there's a size problem that needs to be resolved by the various train projects. - X201 (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's seems no objections to altering start and end to the years/events format so I'll start doing that now. I'll also add the start date and end date templates as suggested. - X201 (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no difference in articles that use the imagesize setting, as both infoboxes support this field. The problem arises, as @Redrose64: pointed out above, with articles that use the infobox's default image size. Its down to what you as project members want your infobox to look like.

I can only see three ways past this:

• Accept that articles transferred from infobox closed London station to Infobox London station will have a larger default image size.

• The associated projects will have to agree on changing the default image size for Infobox London station, to a size that is acceptable to articles that currently use either infobox. This will result in a simple swap over when the infobox is changed.

• Place the imagesize field on articles that currently use the default setting of Infobox closed London station, so that when the article is transferred to the other template, the size of the image remains the same.

• 9 articles use the imagesize field
• 116 use the infobox default image size.

I'm happy to go along with what the related train projects decide on. Please discuss images in this section.- X201 (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to set the image size field in all articles that use the default to 240px, so that there are no image size problems when the articles switch over to Infobox London station. This way is easy to disable in the future and will be quicker than trying to get a couple of WikiProjects to agree on a default image size, something that will be solved anyway when/if the global rail infobox is achieved. - X201 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a very good reason to force the size (such as with an upright image, to avoid it dominating the infobox), I don't see a need to use the |imagesize= parameter, and would prefer to simply leave the parameter as it is - whether that be absent, blank or explicitly set. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with that, it will just result in articles that use the default image size having a default of 280px after they are switched to Infobox London station. - X201 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was The wub (talk · contribs) who increased image and map width from 240px to 280px on {{infobox London station}}, to "make better use of space"; but which "space" (inside the infobox - or outside it?) isn't clear from that, and I can't find a related discussion. How about we reduce that to 265px, to match the infoboxes for outside London? Then, the closed London stations won't experience a 16% increase in width, but 10%. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intention was to use up whitespace inside the infobox. I'm totally fine with standardising on 265px though. the wub "?!" 14:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone happy with 265px being the solution? - X201 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This might be relevant. Alakzi (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy with 265px. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The planner field is only used in eight articles. I suggest dropping this field, and in the articles where it is used, move the text into the prose of the article where appropriate. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Would it not be better to substitute planner for original so that the information about which company proposed to open the station is preserved in the infobox? This same approach is used for {{Infobox UK disused station}}. See for example Lullingstone. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy for me to do that, that's not a problem. I was avoiding it due to the fact that the template documentation seems to refer to specific roles. - X201 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start work on these and get them swapped over. - X201 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just under a half of the articles use this field. Its used to show which station(s) replaced a closed station. This is an awkward one, it will either require a new field in Infobox London station, or a manual task of going through the 60-ish articles and moving the contents into the prose. I'm suggesting that this field is added to Infobox London station. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Add this field to the target infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sort out a request to add this to {{Infobox London station}} - X201 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This field is present in 30 articles, but it appears to do absolutely nothing. I can't see any code in the template that references it. I presume it was intended to have a similar function to railstation but was never actually coded. Infobox London station has no equivalent field. I'm suggesting we remove this field. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I've just done a bit of digging and this diff shows that the Tube Portal was made mandatory in 2009. In light of this, I think adding it as a new optional field in Infobox Lonodon station is the better idea. - X201 (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objections? ::I'll make a request to add this to {{Infobox London station}} - X201 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on closer inspection, this field is not required. The London Transport Portal is mandatory on both templates, the tubestation field on the closed template, does nothing, and doesn't need to do anything on Infobox London station; because the portal is already displayed on it. @Redrose64: could you just double check this for me please, just to make sure I've understood it correctly, thanks. - X201 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The |tubestation= parameter was removed from {{Infobox closed London station}} at 13:50, 3 October 2009 with this edit. It was recognised by {{Infobox London station}} for a very short time - added at 01:43, 28 October 2006 and removed at 01:47, 28 October 2006 - four minutes in all, so it may be treated as if it were never a valid parameter in that infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll remove any occurrence of tubestation in articles that use {{Infobox closed London station}} then. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'm at the stage where templates can be switched over. I'll do a dozen articles test to check that it works correctly, and I'll also paste the full list of articles here as a record. - X201 (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start the tests now. I'm posting a list of all articles that used the closed template, in case a revert is needed for any reason.

- -X201 (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start the AWB run on this now, apologies if it fills up your Watchlist, but WP:MINOR says it has to be marked as a major edit. - X201 (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been completed, everything seems to have gone well. All of the articles listed above now use Infobox London station. Thanks for your help and assistance in getting this done. - X201 (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How complex should routeboxes be? 151.224.250.165 (talk) appears to be trying to include all service variations, including peak-only services into routeboxes. See for example the Northern Rail routes at Manchester Victoria station#External links. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Routeboxes should be as basic as possible, i.e. previous and next stations, line and TOC. No service variations, specials or Sunday services, otherwise there will be a need to update them constantly. There is a need on our part to define for the project's purposes what should and should not appear in a routebox as at present there is no guidance. This was raised here where I floated the idea that some form of guidance could appear on the page which is now a redlink on WP:UKRAIL, i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Guidelines. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Lamberhurst's comments. I would suggest that for each combination of line and operator there generally only needs to be one line in the routebox table (generated by either {{s-rail-national}} or {{rail line}}). Perhaps the problem of multiple lines at least partially stems from using {{s-rail-national}} (which although useful in doing a lot of the formatting work) doesn't (AFAICT) have quite the flexibility of {{rail line}}, for example, when listing more than one "previous" or "next" station.

There is certainly no need for extra information (as in the Manchester Victoria example) to include texts such as "Intercity Express Service" or "Monday-Saturdays only". This can be covered in the text descriptions of the services.

I've also wondered about the overall placement of the routeboxes. It seems quite common to have them in "External links", but it seems (to me) to be logical have them in the section called "Services" (or similar), and if no such section exists, then it can be created.

In the case of the Manchester Victoria example (where there are two sections (for "Network rail services" and "Victoria Metrolink station"), then moving (and splitting) the routebox would also have the advantage of maintaining the overall order of the article, keeping the routeboxes closer to the service descriptions, and splitting a rather long routebox. Robevans123 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robevans123: The {{s-rail-national}} type routeboxes can list more than one previous/next, but not in the same way as {{rail line one to two}} etc. - instead of a different template, you need to use more than one {{s-rail-national}} and supply some parameters which indicate how many rows are covered by each column. See for example the CrossCountry rows at Peterborough railway station#Route, where the first {{s-rail-national}} has the additional parameters |rowsmid=2|rows1=2 and the second {{s-rail-national}} has |hidemid=yes|hide1=yes to correspond with those; this causes the |toc=|route= and |previous= parameters to be ignored, so they may be omitted.

Regarding placement, routeboxes are a form of succession box, and I left a related answer at Template talk:S-start#Order of article elements. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Ah, thank you. I'd looked at the doc for {{s-rail-national}} (eyes glazing over and no examples). Also looked at some random instances using the template, but they all happened to not use the more advanced syntax. Good to have an example to look at. The doc at {{s-line}} (on which {{s-rail-national}} is based) also has some good worked examples.

As to placement, good to see the advice at WP:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization#Overview that they can be placed at the end of sections where applicable. Robevans123 (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally for routeboxes showing the stopping pattern/service rather than just the line route. That said, after a time (eg large interchange stations) they become unweildy and should be replaced by text. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted a number edits by this IP as introduced subtle errors which appeared to be vandalism. Seeing the question being asked here, I'm not unsure to what degree the distribution is intentional, or just well-meaning. —Sladen (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that Ron4563 (talk · contribs) is doing exactly the same sort of thing as 151.224.250.165 (talk) (example) but never simultaneously. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably {{rws}} works with any second parameter, not just geographic? So where there is a need to disambiguate by company that's ok?
And if so, is the article title Foo (MyRailCo) railway station or Foo railway station (MyRailCo)? Nthep (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: - all {{rws}} does is add a link to [[{{{1}}} railway station]], with the linktext {{{1}}}. You can have Nthep if you want, it will just produce a redlink. Regarding the question of article title,IIRC "Foo (MyRailCo) railway station" would be for disambiguation included in the station name, eg Newport (Essex), whereas "Foo railway station (MyRailCo)" would be for our own disambiguation, eg between stations in different countries. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also {{StnlnkA}} which allows the disambiguator to be piped. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I picked up the West Coast Main Line service pattern diagram done by Tgtrains (no longer active) in 2010. I updated the style, clean up the SVG codes and fixed some typo. I'm quite happy with the result, but still open to suggestions. One particular issue is that I'm not too sure about the "minutes past the hour each service departs" from London Euston. I keep it intact anyway.

I wonder if I can do the same for East Coast Main Line. For that I need a base map which doesn't exist in Wikimedia or Google image search result. I don't trust myself in correctly interpreting the operators section in the article because it sounds as complicated as its West sibling. The closest thing I can get is file:Ecml.svg, but it doesn't distinguish between operators. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameboat: This talk page is mainly for discussing improvements to the portal. You are more likely to get the help you need if you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, the WikiProject talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(note to others: by "this talk page", John of Reading means Portal talk:UK Railways, where the two posts above were originally placed) --Redrose64 (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameboat: This looks a lot better with the curves/choice of type/spelling fixes. However, I did notice that you're using color gradients across the diagram which may confuse readers. For example, a reader glancing at the diagram may wonder if the services at say, Coventry and Nuneaton, are provided by the same operator. I believe that it is standard in route diagrams to keep the appearance of lines identical (not just in Wikipedia, but going back to Harry Beck's Underground Map). Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it also worth adding the Southern service from Milton Keynes? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robevans123: Gradient is gaining some popularity in denoting services of the same operator in transit diagram (mostly in bus or light rail services diagram), but monotonous is obviously more common. I agree the range of the gradient can be narrower/subtler if we don't wipe it out completely. If we add Southern service then obviously the gradient can't stay because it uses green livery unless we use yellow instead. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The style is good, but that service map is massively out of date. It still shows the LM London-Crewe service going via Northampton for example which it hasn't done now for a few years. And also the Glasgow/Edinburgh to Manchester service no longer runs via Bolton. I can see a few other areas where it is outdated as well. G-13114 (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it considering how old the original diagram is. Can you do a more thorough check and list all the required revisions in bullet point so I can make change to each point precisely? Thank you. (P.S. Not to mention that many UK railway station articles are outdated as well such as Bolton Interchange.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well from memory:

• The LM London to Crewe service no longer calls at Northampton. Instead now runs direct from Milton Keynes to Rugby.
• There are two hourly LM services from London to Birmingham via Northampton, rather that the one shown here, Plus an additional local service from Northampton to Birmingham, calling at all stops (I think!)
• The First TransPennine service from Glasgow/Edinburgh to Manchester now runs via Wigan rather than Bolton. Although this might change back again once the Manchester-Preston line is electrified. But that's the situation at the moment.
• The hourly VT service from London to Wolverhampton has been combined with the hourly service from Birmingham to Glasgow/Edinburgh.
• There are also a couple of hourly CrossCountry trains running from Birmingham to Manchester via Stoke-on-Trent. But I'm not sure whether they should be included since they are part of the cross-country network rather than strictly WCML services.

Those are the ones I can think of, if that's any use. Others might be able to think of other changes. G-13114 (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you what I remember of GGN\GTR, FHT, GCR and VTEC

GGN\GTR

• 2tph direct Kings Cross to Cambridge which route wise follow the ECML as far as Hitchin before splitting
  • One of those extends as a slow train to King's Lynn after Cambridge calling at Cambridge North (when it opens), Waterbeach, Ely, Littleport, Downham Market, Watlington and King's Lynn
• 1tph semi-fast from King's Cross to Cambridge calling at Finsbury Park, Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City, Baldock, Royston and Cambridge
• 1tph "slow" from King's Cross to Cambridge calling at Finsbury Park, Potters Bar, Welwyn Garden City, Welwyn North, Knebworth, Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City, Baldock, Ashwell & Mordern, Royston, Meldreth, Shepreth, Foxton and Cambridge
• 1tph semi-fast from King's Cross to Peterborough calling at Finsbury Park, Stevenage, Hitchin, Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon and Peterborough
• 1tph "slow" from King's Cross to Peterborough calling at Finsbury Park, Potters Bar, Welwyn Garden City, Welwyn North, Knebworth, Stevenage, Hitchin, Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon and Peterborough
• 3tph from Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City calling at Old Street, Essex Road, Highbury & Islington, Drayton Park, Finsbury Park, Harringay, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace, New Southgate, Oakleigh Park, New Barnet, Hadley Wood, Potters Bar, Brookmans Park, Welham Green, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City
• 3tph from Moorgate to Hertford North calling at Old Street, Essex Road, Highbury & Islington, Drayton Park, Finsbury Park, Harringay, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace, Bowes Park, Palmers Green, Winchmore Hill, Grange Park, Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill, Crews Hill, Cuffley, Bayford and Hertford North
  • 1tph extends from Hertford North to Stevenage and Letchworth Garden City calling at Watton at Stone, Stevenage, Hitchin and Letchworth Garden City

FHT

1tp2h from Kings Cross to Hull Paragon calling at Stevenage (limited), Grantham, Retford, Doncaster, York, Selby, Howden, Brough and Hull Paragon (and Beverley, limited)

VTEC

The current diagram applies.

GCR

• 1tp2h Kings Cross to Sunderland calling at York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Eaglescliffe, Hartlepool and Sunderland
• 1tp2h Kings Cross to Bradford calling at Doncaster, Pontefract Monkhill, Wakefield Kirkgate, Mirfield, Brighouse, Halifax and Bradford Interchange

TBC when I remember other TOCs north of Doncaster. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 21:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered an article called "Leigh (Greater Manchester) railway station". The station closed in 1969, 5 years before the county of Greater Manchester came into existence, so the station can't ever have been officially called "Leigh (Greater Manchester)". Butt (p.141) gives the most recent name of the station as "LEIGH [2] L&NW", meaning the 2nd station that the L&NWR named "Leigh". What would be an appropriate title for this article? -- Dr Greg  talk  20:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the (Greater Manchester) disambiguator is in line with the policy that says that we normally use modern names for local authorities, even for pre-1974 events. We could use its second-last name, i.e. Leigh and Bedford. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is Wikipedia's own disambiguation, not the official name, so shouldn't it be "Leigh railway station, Greater Manchester"? -- Dr Greg  talk  22:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose's suggestion provides a more natural disambiguation than appending a county to the station name which didn't exist during the station's lifetime. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't rewrite history either. Leigh (Lancashire) railway station would be correct in this case (IMVHO). Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to go with that proposal as well. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this post. Alakzi (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations#Proposal to remove several of Template:Infobox station's parameters, which has just 56 watchers ({{Infobox station}} is only slightly better, with 57); this page has 172. This WikiProject is an interested party since the proposals affect stations in Northern Ireland which formerly used {{infobox Ireland station}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you may be aware of the recent SPAD by Tangmere. Due to developments since, I believe that this incident is now notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. The 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident has been created, and collaboration in improving the article is requested. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a category for railway accidents caused by SPADs? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic, so yes. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the KISS principle, Category:SPADs ? Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought I've gone with Category:Railway accidents involving a SPAD. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed as 'incidents'. Or simply SPADs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are accidents, and I'm sure that the incident at Wootton Bassett wasn't a deliberate act. Therefore "accident" is a reasonable enough word to use. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated {{Midland Metro stops}} for deletion as redundant to {{Infobox station}} at TfD. Your input would be appreciated. Alakzi (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a peer review of the Hastings Line article with a view to going for FA status in the near future. Improvements and comments welcome at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review now done, FAC to follow. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hastings Line article is now a featured article candidate. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]