Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways: Difference between revisions
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 46) (bot |
Murgatroyd49 (talk | contribs) →Naming convention: new section |
||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
::Your welcome to remove some of the images if it makes the page tidier, i simply added all variants of the units for the sake of completionism [[User:WestRail642fan|Don't be afraid to be creative ]] ([[User talk:WestRail642fan|talk]]) 20:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
::Your welcome to remove some of the images if it makes the page tidier, i simply added all variants of the units for the sake of completionism [[User:WestRail642fan|Don't be afraid to be creative ]] ([[User talk:WestRail642fan|talk]]) 20:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
::: To be clear if I goto that page I am expecting to read about the origin of the design, the modular concept, the build history, variants, problems and a lead into the replacement. Maybe also a comparison to the competing Desiro. The colours are of really a minor consequence. One diagram of a unit and one diagram for each coach type at the same scale might be more encyclopedic.[[User:Djm-leighpark|Djm-leighpark]] ([[User talk:Djm-leighpark|talk]]) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
::: To be clear if I goto that page I am expecting to read about the origin of the design, the modular concept, the build history, variants, problems and a lead into the replacement. Maybe also a comparison to the competing Desiro. The colours are of really a minor consequence. One diagram of a unit and one diagram for each coach type at the same scale might be more encyclopedic.[[User:Djm-leighpark|Djm-leighpark]] ([[User talk:Djm-leighpark|talk]]) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Naming convention == |
|||
Hallo? Anyone here? [[User:Murgatroyd49|Murgatroyd49]] ([[User talk:Murgatroyd49|talk]]) 14:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:27, 4 November 2019
WikiProject UK Railways | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
Moved to Template talk:Sheffield station05:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
West Anglia signalling - Cheshunt
I seem to have discovered contradictory dates re signalling in West Anglia. The text below is lifted from the Cheshunt station page.
In August 2002 signalling control was transferred to the Liverpool Street Integrated Electronic Control Centre (IECC),[1] although the signal box officially closed on 24 May 2003.[2]
I'd be grateful if anyone could help with correct dates or an explanation of why the signal box was retained for another 9 months. Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Signalbox.org suggests that changeover came in phases with some areas transferred in 2002 and Cheshunt in 2003. Certes (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Capital letters in railway line article titles
What is the reasoning for various railway lines having different capitalisation in the titles? For example, Great Western main line and East London line do not capitalise "main" or "line", whereas Great Eastern Main Line and West Coast Main Line capitalise both. Is there an actual reason for this, or is this just due to lack of standardisation and consistency? ElshadK (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- There is a reason; a certain editor moved a number of articles and there has been lost of prior discussion on this very topic. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- That would be me. I was working toward consistency with guidelines such as WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, but that doesn't guarantee the same answer for all. In some of these cases, I was not involved, e.g. in downcasing and then upcasing Great Eastern without discussion (though sources mostly don't cap it). Great Western main line was downcased per consensus at the RM discussion on its talk page. You can check others for their respective histories. I agree there's work to be done. For some, like West Coast Main Line, book stats in recent decades support caps. For others, not at all. For the London Underground lines, I don't think I was involved, as there was a longstanding convention of lowercase line there already. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this is a perfect example of what happens when a policy is blindly and mechanically applied without regards for basic common sense, unfortunately wikipedia is frequently blighted by this sort of thing. G-13114 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- A TfL lowercase convention which is entirely backwards. "Circle and District lines" fine but "Jubilee Line" as Line is part of the title... Ugh... Seriously peeves me that one. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tfl, though, likes lowercase for "line" names. Bazza (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- TfL change their house style every time they appoint a new expensive design consultancy, and they change their capitalisation policy more often than they change their pants; while they currently insist on lower-case "line" in the past they've also insisted on capitalising "Line" and also went through a phase of always writing in ALLCAPS on everything public-facing. (Their current style guide includes some truly batty policies such as "'Capital' must always be capitalised when referring to London but always be lower case when referring to any other city".) Don't take anything they say as having any relevance at all to how Wikipedia deals with coverage of anything outside their specific remit; their diktats on casing are routinely and consistently ignored by the media (e.g. every single mention of the Elizabeth Line by the BBC). ‑ Iridescent 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think a standard rule should be developed for all lines, with the exception of TfL lines as they explicitly use lower case. Personally I would capitalise, as they are proper names. We cannot rely on external sources for this (especially news outlets) as they are often written by careless individuals who don't take capitalisation seriously. ElshadK (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- That may be. As Wikipedians we should take capitalization seriously, and I do. I'm guided to avoid unnecessary capitalization by MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, as informed by sources. There is no "blindly and mechanically applied" policy thing going on here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think a standard rule should be developed for all lines, with the exception of TfL lines as they explicitly use lower case. Personally I would capitalise, as they are proper names. We cannot rely on external sources for this (especially news outlets) as they are often written by careless individuals who don't take capitalisation seriously. ElshadK (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- TfL change their house style every time they appoint a new expensive design consultancy, and they change their capitalisation policy more often than they change their pants; while they currently insist on lower-case "line" in the past they've also insisted on capitalising "Line" and also went through a phase of always writing in ALLCAPS on everything public-facing. (Their current style guide includes some truly batty policies such as "'Capital' must always be capitalised when referring to London but always be lower case when referring to any other city".) Don't take anything they say as having any relevance at all to how Wikipedia deals with coverage of anything outside their specific remit; their diktats on casing are routinely and consistently ignored by the media (e.g. every single mention of the Elizabeth Line by the BBC). ‑ Iridescent 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tfl, though, likes lowercase for "line" names. Bazza (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- A TfL lowercase convention which is entirely backwards. "Circle and District lines" fine but "Jubilee Line" as Line is part of the title... Ugh... Seriously peeves me that one. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this is a perfect example of what happens when a policy is blindly and mechanically applied without regards for basic common sense, unfortunately wikipedia is frequently blighted by this sort of thing. G-13114 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- That would be me. I was working toward consistency with guidelines such as WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, but that doesn't guarantee the same answer for all. In some of these cases, I was not involved, e.g. in downcasing and then upcasing Great Eastern without discussion (though sources mostly don't cap it). Great Western main line was downcased per consensus at the RM discussion on its talk page. You can check others for their respective histories. I agree there's work to be done. For some, like West Coast Main Line, book stats in recent decades support caps. For others, not at all. For the London Underground lines, I don't think I was involved, as there was a longstanding convention of lowercase line there already. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Electrostar diagrams
Over on the Bombardier Electrostar page, someone has added a "diagrams" section and filled the page with diagrams for every single Electrostar. For example, there are 5 Southern 377s alone. I am minded to delete this because I think it looks messy and does not contribute much to the understanding of the reader, but what to others think? ElshadK (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Per the discussion [#RFC on the use on livery art and other editor-constructed diagrams in articles] not yet archived from this page it is regarded as permitted ... however ... The existence of subpages for each constituent electrostar variant British Rail Class 357, British Rail Class 375, British Rail Class 376, British Rail Class 377, British Rail Class 378, British Rail Class 375, British Rail Class 387 nad Gautrain #Rolling stock and care should be taken not use this as an excuse for excessively duplicating images. I am currently finding the Bombardier Electrostar says very little about what makes an electrostar an electrostar and more about how many ways they can be painted.MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts: Don't use images or galleries excessively. seem relevant. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- The section title "Diagrams" seems confusing. I initially assumed that someone had listed the services operated by each unit. Certes (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your welcome to remove some of the images if it makes the page tidier, i simply added all variants of the units for the sake of completionism Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear if I goto that page I am expecting to read about the origin of the design, the modular concept, the build history, variants, problems and a lead into the replacement. Maybe also a comparison to the competing Desiro. The colours are of really a minor consequence. One diagram of a unit and one diagram for each coach type at the same scale might be more encyclopedic.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your welcome to remove some of the images if it makes the page tidier, i simply added all variants of the units for the sake of completionism Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Naming convention
Hallo? Anyone here? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)