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 - January 2015 January 2015 - May 2015 May 2015 - August 2015 June 2015 - November 2015 November 2015 - March 2016 March 2016 - July 2016 July 2016 - November 2016 November 2015 - Present

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

• see Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts#RM for Requested Move discussions in progress and recently closed.

The one-at-a-time RM discussions are attracting almost no participation. It seems that it would be more efficient to have a sort of triage process, where we list articles that have capitalized Line, and get quick opinions to (a) keep it that way, (b) downcase it, (c) discuss it, or (d) discuss in groups. I could organize such a process, or someone who is more into the UK trains could. I suspect most articles would be decided without much overhead, within a few days, and if we get some moves wrong and subsequently get an objection those could be reverted if necessary and discussed. I'll be happy to help or stay out of the way if someone else wants to take it on. Otherwise I can make a fleshed-out proposal here. Contact me by talk or email if you'd like to help. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There actually aren't a whole ton of line articles that are capitalized. At least half are already at lowercase (and if some of those are wrong, we can fix those, too, of course). I went through the first 5000 hits for intitle:line and found just these that I think are capitalized rail lines in England not already under discussion (though I haven't looked closely enough to verify even that much);

(all candidates are now moved into sections below; feel free to comment or move them)

Note that I am not saying these should be downcased. Just that they should be looked at, so we can decide which are obviously proper names, which are obviously not, and which we want to discuss. We could take our time, let editors move these into categories such as "leave capped", "downcase without discussion", "discuss individually", "discuss in groups" (e.g. a group of branch lines) or something like that, and get this done fairly quickly with opportunity for input from all and less overhead than full RM discussions, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give this a try. Anyone who wants to make a good-faith effort to propose dispositions, just drag from the list above into a section below. Keep in mind that there's not a big cost for errors, as they can be revisited, reviewed, reverted if we don't get it right the first time. And I will not be executing any moves from these without discussion; this is just some starting discussion unless they sit in the "clearly just descriptive" section without any opposition for a week. Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, I don't know how you came up with it, but Bristol City Line was a shipping company, not a railway line. I've struckthrough above. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with the list by a quick shallow search for Line in title and England in article, hoping to find rail lines in England, but noted that "I haven't looked closely enough to verify even that much". Thanks for checking and marking that one. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Avocet Line – almost already capped in books and news.
• Bittern Line – marketing name, capped in most books and news
• Bristol City Line – a shipping company
• Chase Line – most commonly capped in books and news
• Chiltern Main Line – mostly capped in books and news
• Far North Line – uniformly capped in news, often enough in books
• Forge Valley Line – news – books – few mentions, more capped
• Lavender Line – only one in news, and most in books thus.
• Looe Valley Line – news – books – mostly capped in books and news
• Narborough Railway Line – seems to be the proper name of a Norfolk Wildlife Trust preserve
• North Downs Line – pretty consistently capped in news and books
• Northern City Line – about 2/3 capped in books and news; close enough
• Potteries Loop Line – usually capped in sources for over a century
• River Line (East Sussex) – pretty consistently capped in books a river.

  That's funny. I was looking at sources for an actual British rail line called the River Line, but that's not what that article is, and that is not among the rail lines on the River Line disambig page. Maybe some day it will have an article. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Riviera Line – rare in books; usually capped in news
  • Disused railway stations on the Riviera Line
• St Ives Bay Line – community railway; pretty consistently capped in books and news
• Sprat and Winkle Line - As a suggestion, would Sprat and Winkle Line not be a proper noun as it is an applied name in the form of a nickname rather than descriptive of it going between two places? Neither end of the line is called Sprat or Winkle. (viz ECML, WCML, Wherry Lines, Bittern Line etc)The joy of all things (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. I see it capitalized in books for the last 25 years (but not before), and in 2 of 3 news items. Close enough. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Stour Valley Line – news – books – mostly capped in news, but not in books of any century
• Tamar Valley Line – news – books – 2/3 capped in news, mostly capped in modern books
• Varsity Line – mostly capped in both books and news
• Watercress Line – uniformly capped in news and books.
• Wherry Lines – marketing name, capped in most books and news

Optimist had my move to lowercase reverted (see User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Move_of_Cambrian_Line_to_Cambrian_line), so we should discuss. Maybe not start today, as the revert used up today's RM date on a procedural RM to revert, at Talk:Cambrian_Line#Requested_move_27_February_2017. Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalise to Cambrian Line (also Cambrian Coast Line and Heart of Wales Line) as proper noun phrases, per sources. Also this is not one of the form "Far Twittering to Oysterperch line", a simple geographical descriptor, it is a name invented specifically to name the line, not merely to describe a route - and such will tend to be proper noun phrases, thus capitalised, just as the simple descriptors will tend to be uncapitalised. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion opened at Talk:Cambrian Line#Requested move 4 March 2017. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the downcasing, but older sources list it as Gilling and Pickering line (my emphasis). Howat (1990 & 2004) in the Railways of Ryedale (definitive account of the line), Hoole 1976, Suggitt 2005 (though he varies over three pages) and this WWT, TR&FOTNER. More modern variations differ wildly. No preference on any really, but the NER who built it called it X and X, not X to X. The joy of all things (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the "to" lines are more common with "and" or dash, which are more symmetric. In the Line downcasing discussions I've been suggesting the dash as alternative, since a big multi-RM closed in favor of dash for such things several months ago, and I moved a bunch more without opposition since then; so dash leads to more consistency. But that's a weak reason, and I have no objection to "and" or "to" if that's what people (and sources) prefer. Individual discussions are fine for such; or we could group some "to" lines and discuss them all in one place. There are about 10 such open, see current list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts#RM. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About half capped in news, half in books; per MOS:CAPS, lowercase default seems reasonable.

Uniformly lowercase line in books, but capped in recent news about the "Shotts Line electrification contract". Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Group 1

Group 2

Since there have been various viewpoints already on this interesting case. I did just open an RM discussion; please comment: Talk:Cross-City_Line#Requested_move_11_February_2017. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as no move. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Arun Valley Line – news – books – 70% or more lowercase in books and news
• Caledonian Main Line – usually Caledonian main line in books; half in news
• Cranleigh Line – Usually lowercase in books; half in news
• Dundee and Forfar Direct Line – usually Dundee and Forfar direct line in books; no news
• Haddington Line – Usually lowercase in both books and news
• South Eastern Main Line – most often South Eastern main line in both news and books; also South-Eastern main line and south-eastern main line; less often capped.
• Tees Valley Line – news – books – lowercase in 20th c books, absent in news
• Teign Valley Line – news – books – mostly lowercase in books and news

Capped in one book ("off-road cycle path conversion of the Fallowfield Loop Line") and one news item (The Complete Guide to: Great british bike rides), and doesn't appear otherwise (no lowercase loop line). More typically it's just "Fallowfield Loop", and in all cases it's more often about the bike path than the railway. The article lead says "Fallowfield Loop railway line". The case for capitalizing Line is weak; the case for even having the word line is weak. Probably "Fallowfield Loop", or "Fallowfield loop" as in in old railway magazines, is better. Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on losing "line" - see Pudsey Loop. The joy of all things (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fallowfield Loop is the article on the bike path. The line is "Fallowfield loop" in the only hit in Google books in the last 50 years. From books it appears that "Fallowfield line" is what it was called. I think we should just move it to there, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to whence it came for now: Fallowfield Loop railway line. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be officially named 'West of England Line' during the Network SouthEast era so should retain its capital L but loose the word 'Main'. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or more commonly downcased as "West of England line", per 80% of books and nearly as much of news. Similar, perhaps not quite as overwhelming, lowercased "West of England main line". Pick one, and fix the case. Happy to discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RM is open at Talk:West of England Main Line#Requested move 12 March 2017. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moved to West of England line. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty mixed; probably should be lowercase main line.

Well Great Western is definitely capitalised, and I'd say the rest is too. It's a proper name, not a descriptive one. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Great Western Main Line' is a name used by Network Rail. As Matt says, Line is being used as a proper noun. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the page about it, Network rail calls it Great Western Mainline (in the title), Great Western route, and Great Western railway, and Great Western line, and just Great Western. Where are you seeing that they call it Great Western Main Line? Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RM is open: Talk:Great Western Main Line#Requested move 9 March 2017. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moved to Great Western main line. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed, either Marshlink line or just Marshlink, since Line is not part of its name.

I tried Marshlink but User:Ritchie333 reverted; so maybe Marshlink line? Discuss, or just do it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: A random sample of sources (eg: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) uses "Marshlink line", and with nearby railways we have South Eastern main line, Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canterbury West) Line, East Coastway line and Maidstone line, though I notice a number of the articles with "line" in lower case were moved very recently, so I would say there is no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No way should you "just do it". You have been asked before to discuss first, yet once again you moved without first obtaining positive consensus. It is becoming increasingly apparent that you are determined to move pages, no matter what others might think, by the expedient of trying again repeatedly until others give up. Continuing until you are the WP:WINNER is not the Wikipedia way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite interested in what others might think, and frustrated at not being able to get much input for the process. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of response would suggest to me : "it ain't broke, don't fix it". As one of the principal contributors getting this article to GA status, I have to say I was more concerned that the railway's history from the mid-19th century to the present was complete and factually accurate, and whether or not the "L" in "line" should be in caps is kind of at the bottom of priorities. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "if it ain't broke don't fix it". But this one is broke, along with several others, per WP:TITLEFORMAT and MOS:CAPS. Note that of the "random sampling" that you linked, 4 out of 6 use lowercase line. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ritchie333. RM discussion started at Talk:Marshlink_Line#Requested_move_9_March_2017. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moved to Marshlink line. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of variations in sources, esp. Portsmouth direct line and Portsmouth Direct line

Actually, it appears to be majority Portsmouth Direct line, sometimes quoted as 'Portsmouth Direct' line, so I went ahead and downcased line. Let me know if there's any objection and we can discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Portsmouth Direct line. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previously downcased line as uncontroversial, reverted at request from G-13114. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion opened at Talk:Sutton Park Line#Requested move 4 March 2017. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Sutton Park line. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is the default, per instructions at WP:RM, when multiple article titles raise the same issue. It's a hassle for the community and for RM admins to re-re-reconsider redundant move requests, whether there's a tediously bewildering array of simultaneous ones, or an interminable line of them one after another month after month. Demanding individual RM listings for pages that do not raise unique issues is a WP:GAMING, WP:DE, and WP:OWN ploy, since most RM participants will rapidly tire of this as noise, while those hell-bent on doing something against MOS, AT policy, or the naming conventions will gain the upper hand, because only they will be obsessive enough to follow and participate in all these discussions. As posts on this page demonstrate, they'll actively canvass each other to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Cross-City Line, which I did as a single since it seems kind of different, just closed as no move, because most editors are weary of these one-at-a-time discussions. Railfan Optimist on the run, "a regular user of the line for the last 20+ years" got several "per him" supports from other railfans to treat it as a proper name, even though sources mostly don't. I don't think this kind of very-local consensus to overcapitalize does any part of the project any good, but I can accept that one as a loss (it's interesting, too, that the sources they quote don't use a hyphen, but there it is). Most of the others, whether single or multi, weren't lines he regularly uses, I guess, so they went through without opposition, for the most part, or only from the general over-capitalizers Mjroots and G-13114. So about 50 or so recently fixed, and the project is starting to look more consistent, less discordant with the rest of Wikipedia. Still a bunch to consider, like in the lists above. Any help or advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Thornbury Branch Line - another rehash of the uncapitalising line saga. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a rehash, not a saga, but another step in reducing over-capitalization. Even though it's hard to imagine how these could be controversial, especially in light of discussions above, I'm doing it through RM discussion as you suggested. Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And again you've done a mass move request*, despite opposition at the original RM on talk:Redhill–Tonbridge line to mass moves. All such RMs should be individual to the page the RM refers to, and this WP should be notified of all such RMs to give editors the chance to participate. I notice that you later filed a second RM on the Redhill–Tonbridge line, which was only successful due to complete lack of notification to members of this, the Kent and Surrey WPs. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*I missed this word in my original post, added it so that the post is factually correct. Mjroots (talk)

Notification was provided. Have you not seen the huge thread above where Dicklyon has provided notifications of the various discussions occurring? Indeed, he even sought wider participation, and later posted a list of all the discussions open. If you're going to accuse an editor of impropriety, at least make an attempt to ensure that the accusation has some sort of basis in fact. RGloucester — ☎ 17:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: - there is NO notification that the Redhill to Tonbridge Line article was subject to a third RM request in four days posted on this talk page. Therefore my statment, at least in part, stands. I didn't realise that the huge discussion above had some RMs chucked in. It was getting too long to read and from first glance was merely more dead horse beating, which I decided to stay away from. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there was a notice. Dicklyon posted a list of active RMs, which included that one. I already linked it above. I'll do so again. The other two RMs were withdrawn by Dicklyon because of procedural objections by you, and a few others. You requested a one-page RM, and indeed, Dicklyon acquiesced to your request. Even when he does this, you lash out at him? RGloucester — ☎ 17:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a search of the text currently on this talk page brings up no mention of "Redhill" between 26 January and my post earlier today. So where is it then? Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff I replaced the manual list with a link to where such things are kept current; you can also read there about how to make sure you get changes to show up on your watchlist. Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately going out of your way to find technical ways to hide the start of new discussions, and of where those discussions are located? And when an editor then flags such discussions on a project page, they are accused of "canvassing".

A project-wide bulk issue, such as page moves, should take place on the project page, where it is most obvious to all. Especially when it comes at the end of a long series of such. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept that this WP was notified (some days after) that the third RM request had been filed. Removal of text from talk pages such as this makes it much harder to find things. One shouldn't have to rely on digging through the page history to find out things about discussions currently on the page. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Mj, these were all advertised in the standard ways, at WP:RM, on the affected articles and talk pages, in the project alert system, and discussed here, and when Useddenim requested, also explicitly here on this project talk page, for a few days when you were actively editing, and then a more general mechanism was described in case you weren't already looking at alerts. It's not my fault you ignored it all. But in the process, it became clear that you are about the only person willing to still argue to capitalize these descriptive titles. Time to give that up, maybe? Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion on my talk page at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Redhill.E2.80.93Tonbridge_line (permalink), where I have again urged those all involved to follow WP:MULTI and use centralised discussions to resolve these issues.

Multiple individual discussions on the same issues principle are a sure path to creating frustrated editors, frayed tempers, and resultant drama. This saga is already showing many of the characteristics of those protracted disputes which end up at Arbcom with vast screeds of evidence and allegations, inducing headaches and leading to unwelcome outcomes for many of those involved.

I have no stake in any of this, other than a hope that all the editorial talent here can be used to produce a stable consensus rather than an extended diversion of all this talent into accusatory wrangles at drama boards and probable sanctions. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Yes --5.142.235.215 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mjroots, it seems to me that Dicklyon has been sensitive to your objections ... continually. Tony (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one closed as "Move all per overwhelming consensus", and so they're now all lowercased. There are still about 10 Xyz Branch Line articles to go, and none of them appear to be proper names when I look in sources (most have mixed caps, mixed other names, etc.). Should I list them like above, or start another RM, or just go ahead and move them? Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just move them, or list them at WP:RM#TR and cite that closure. This WP:FILIBUSTER stuff on the part of a handful of over-capitalisers has run its course, exhausted everyone's patience, and wasted a tremendous amount of time, re-re-re-resisting the same kinds of moves no matter how many times the resisters don't get their desired result (see WP:TE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU), launching repeated frivolous dramaboard actions, etc., etc.. None of these antics had any effect on the outcome and it's time they stopped. "Move all per overwhelming consensus" is the end of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went a head and listed those in the discussion above, along with a bunch of others, and after a week with no opposition moved them. This prompted some pushback on just a few "named" lines (not these branch lines), which is fine; so I'll start a few RM discussions instead of a bunch. It still seems to me that claiming "proper name" when sources show mostly lowercase is silly and time-wasting, but at least it's only a few now. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So here's discussion of one what was moved and moved back: Talk:Sutton_Park_Line#Requested_move_4_March_2017. Also Talk:Cambrian_Line#Requested_move_4_March_2017. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could move this comment to a more appropriate place I'd appreciate it, I'm writing from a mobile and can't find anything on this talk page using it.

London reconnections has a new article it in the South eastern route study, and it's notable that in the NR map, all the line names are capitalised. http://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/kent-route-study-part-1-london-bridge-metro-services/. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge closed with a long statement that included the highlighted conclusion that "article titles should use narrow-gauge, except for proper or common names where a contrary use has been established". Presumably he means only where it's used as an adjective (attributively) before a noun, as in "narrow-gauge railway", "narrow-gauge line", or "narrow-gauge locomotives". So I moved back all the ones that Bermicourt took the hyphen out of, and some others. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A request from Commons:User talk:Pkbwcgs: can someone identify the type of unit in this photo please? Appearently it's either a Class 375 or Class 376. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, I'd say it's not a 376, as the doors are flush with the side of the train, whereas photos of the 376 show them recessed. Unless of course it's something completely different. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a carriage number, but it's blurred, can anybody work it out? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's either a 466 or 465 - it's not a 376 due to the flush doors, and it's not a 375 because the 375s have rectangular door windows, not curved. By weight of numbers I say 465. I think the number on the side is 65715, which resolves to 465916. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the update on Yorton railway station, I think all the UK mainland mainline station articles have now been updated for the latest usage stats. Shout if you find any gaps. Johnlp (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it only took several months. Oh well, it'll be the LT stats next, I suppose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth considering if there's a way to provide stats via a template, so that when new stats are released, you only need to update one or two templates instead of updating hundreds of articles. Something similar exists for local government district populations. See {{English district population}}. A template that worked like this could then be included in the station infobox template code. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just hundreds, but 2,557. If all these figures were in one template, then every article would be carrying 2,556 figures that were irrelevant. Then there is the processing time to pick out just the one relevant figure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to perform a lookup against a table, or link from Wikidata (where I guess it would be easier to mass import the data)? Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could use something similar to Module:HK-MTR stations or Module:Rail transport colors. I don't think there are Wikidata properties for traffic statistics yet. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if template writer extraordinaire Cyberpower678 could advise any further? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about Lua modules, Green Cardamom is the better person for that.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass on this one as I've never done something like it and currently busy with another programming project. If it's an external link template I have the methods and can do it quickly. The Lua forum takes requests for help. -- GreenC 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikidata:Property proposal/patronage. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 01:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I've been doing a major overhaul of the Tyne and Wear Metro article, which had been in a pretty sorry state for years, and also the associated Tyneside Electrics article. I've improved both massively, but it's far from complete, any help would be appreciated in bringing them and the various sub articles up to scratch. G-13114 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How long before Dicklyon renames it to Tyne and Wear metro? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were just planning on improving the article, great. If you were planning to take it to GA, your book sources might need more precise citations so that people can accurately fact check. For example, the whole of the first part of the "History" section covers 100 years over 5 pages of one book and (seemingly) all of another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to improve the usage statistics table at Highland Main Line#Usage but I have not been successful. First I tried to fix the link to Perth station, which links to the one in Australia, but couldn't figure out how to do this in the template and secondly I added usage statistics for 2015/16 but these do not show up. Ideas? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the templates {{GBsta-u}} and {{GBsta-u A}} to support this.-- Dr Greg  talk  00:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it now appears to be displaying the wrong year - it is saying the last year was 2016/17 not 2015/16. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That must mean that there are too many columns of data being supplied from the article. One of those columns must be incorrect and will need to be deleted and the columns to the right of that shuffled down one. (I could temporarily hide the 2016/17 column (until this year's figures are published) if you like, but that won't put the data in the correct columns.) -- Dr Greg  talk  18:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've solved the problem now. Someone had edited the template on 15 May 2016 which had relabelled all the columns incorrectly. I've now restored the correct column labels. It's possible that anyone who's made use of this template since 15 May 2016 may have put data into the wrong columns, believing them to be correct. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a way of upgrading my template so that it is easier to scroll along the columns without the template taking over the whole article. We can only add columns for so much longer. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 11 years 18:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is only an essay, not policy, Wikipedia:Further reading gives, imo, good guidelines on when to add Further reading sections to articles. As the opening sentence says "... contains a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of works which a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article." So I am concerned that EP111 (talk · contribs) is making numerous additions of Middleton Press books to station articles merely because they contain a few, in many cases just one or two, captioned photos of said locations. While I am sure it is all GF it does not, to me, to abide by the spirit of the essay as captioned photos do not provide much in the way of "additional and more detailed coverage". There maybe cases when it is appropriate but the level of activity here borders on WP:BOOKSPAM and appears to be done because the information is at hand on the Middleton Press website e.g. [7] and not necessarily through personal knowledge and assessment of suitability of the content. Nthep (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many station articles can be improved by the use of various Middleton Press books. Obviously, it would be better if the books were used to actually reference text in the articles, but the addition of the book to the station articles at least points editors in the right direction should they wish to improve the articles. On the subject of adding books to articles, this edit by EP111 to the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway article allowed me to expand the article a bit, and add in some referencing where it was missing. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I'm glad you found it useful. That's exactly the purpose I wanted my edit to have. Regards, EP111 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: I have a couple of the Middleton Press books. I would regard the rest to be of the same quality, for eventual use as references (if I could ever afford all of them). I expect they will be relevant to the articles in question, and particularly for the smaller stations and halts. Other information can be difficult to come by, especially for the stub articles, and relevant text is often left uncited even in the larger ones. You may see Bidston railway station, as an example of an article, where I have used citations from a select few images in one of their books. The image references also corroborate with the text on their website, although the map is not listed. Regards, EP111 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the way you replied reinforces my concern that you are adding some of these links without actually owning the book in question and therefore lacking knowledge as to whether the content is providing more detailed coverage or not. I don't dispute that the references from the website are accurate to the books but that's not the point. Nthep (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's additional material which is relevant to each article. I haven't owned the books, but I might want to at some point in the future in order to add references to the article. I would know where to find additional information, and unincluded images of the relevant stations, just by looking at each article. I'd certainly regard those unincluded images as more detailed coverage, and supplementary to the existing articles, captions included. I have enough experience, with the series, to have an expectation of the quality of the other books. Regards, EP111 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I basically throw a book in Further Reading if it has been used as a source but then replaced by another one, or if it's a source I've looked at for the basic gist of an article but then not used as an actual source for citations. As long as the material is suitable for the topic and would be normally considered reliable, I don't think it hurts to have whatever would benefit the reader if they read an article and then decide they want to research the topic further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 37#Cryptic templates - NRstn and NRrws, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 5#Short-form station link template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]