A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:SMRT infobox colour on whether to keep the new or old format of the infobox station name template that's on top of every MRT article.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please help find sources. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is another station to source. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Don’t answer here - please see Talk:Yüksek Hızlı Tren#Definition in first sentence? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate advice on the Notability of train stations. I am aware of the general advice, Wikipedia:NTRAINSTATION, which states that stations do not have inherent Notability. I am therefore assuming one needs to look at:

• Is there sufficient coverage in a range of reliable sources?
• The context, i.e. the station's historic/current position as a stopping point on a wider network;
• Its history e.g. is it a historic building, demonstrated by (in the UK) being listed?
• Anything else?

I can ask at the Helpdesk, but this seemed an appropriate starting point. Any advice gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You have the right idea. Stations that are in active use have more leeway that disused stations. Flag stops without structures probably aren't notable. If there's no article about the physical line that the station is on (and the station is active) then that should probably be written first. Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Caltrain Modernization Program has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delhi Metro has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Ari BTS station#Requested move 31 January 2025. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CRRNJ Newark Bay Bridge#Requested move 23 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ari BTS station#Requested move 31 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, in my wanderings around Wikipedia, I came across Qingdao–Jinan through train. While searching for sources, I found these additional articles (which I added into See also section):

• Qingdao–Jinan high-speed railway – a faster parallel high-speed railway
• Qingdao–Jinan passenger railway
• Qingdao–Jinan Railway – the older "conventional" railway running along the Jiaoji passenger railway

Since I am not familiar with the topic, I am asking for help here. Wondering if any duplication, and if so maybe combine articles? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The 3 railways are different railways, built at different times, on somewhat different routes. I can't see any advantage in combining them. The passenger service is another matter and not very useful in its current form.--Grahame (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask, on my mac book, the images have truncated, obscured the citations, is this happening for other users on here?? Govvy (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. There are too many images on the article for the amount of prose, there is also a MOS:SANDWICH issue in the reference section. I'll start a discussion on the article talk page about which images we should use. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Any help expanding Dixon, Peoria and Hannibal Railroad, a new article, would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:China Railway#Requested move 17 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian Railways locomotive class WAM-2/3#Requested move 4 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Do we have any articles covering the concept of an infrastructure inspection train or an inspection train? I'm thinking of something like the inspection trains in Victoria (Australia). Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We have more specific articles Track geometry car, Track checker (covering only the USA and Ireland), China Railway comprehensive inspection trains, Catenary maintenance vehicle, Clearance car, and articles about individual examples (e.g. New Zealand Track Evaluation Carriage, New Measurement Train, Doctor Yellow, SNCF TGV Iris 320, Inspection locomotive (which focuses exclusively on the steam era)), but as far as I've been able to find we don't have an article on the concept as a whole beyond the higher level Departmental vehicle (an article in poor shape). We have Category:Maintenance of way equipment (which is broader) and sub-category Category:Track recording trains (which is narrower) which I found by knowing the New Measurement Train article exists. It turns out this is an area which needs quite a bit of work. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes infrastructure is inspected using an ordinary train that is not carrying passengers (in the UK, it will run under a 1Z** or 5Z** headcode). An example of this is the empty train sent out along the down Northern City line from Moorgate on 8 March 2013, in order to find out why water was pouring through the tunnel crown to the north of Old Street. See Penetration and obstruction of a tunnel between Old Street and Essex Road stations, London 8 March 2013. No spoilers: it's interesting reading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Baraboo station#Requested move 4 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Last week the SEPTA Metro rail network in Philadelphia debuted its new line names.[1][2] This means that there are a bunch of pages that need to be moved, and their articles need to updated. Additionally, we'll have to update many templates and its subpage at Module:Adjacent stations. This is a big task and while some editors have been making some changes, there are currently lots of inconsistencies in the existing articles (i.e. some have been partially updated, some not updated at all). Aside from this conversation from over a year ago, I haven't seen much discussion on it, and would like to suggest forming some type of ad-hoc taskforce.

See this talk post (from December 2023) that mentions many of the proposed page moves that should now be implemented: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stations#SEPTA_Metro_page_moves

I would be happy to have a discussion about this and I hear any other suggestions. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dream out loud: Stations and Modules are already done, I'm saving the line articles for last. Cards84664 18:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Have all the station articles been updated to reflect the new modules? Also, City Hall station (SEPTA) and 15th Street station (SEPTA) should be merged into a single article. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

All done yes. There's a draft for 15/City that I am adapting now. Cards84664 19:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Camellia railway station#Requested move 28 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:X'Trapolis#Requested move 11 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This stub has been unsourced for 15 years, and the creator appears to have retired. Can you please add reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

FYI, the article Light train has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

• "A light train is a type of multiple unit passenger train that is developed for mainline rail roads. These type of trains are built using lightweighting techniques, with the purpose of reducing operating costs. Light trains that appeared in the 1930s were called lightweight cars."

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

• "Article topic appears to be a neologism and is not used in the sense of the article by any sources."

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.

Thanks, A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The following pages have date errors that I couldn't fix for one reason or another. If anyone is familiar with these pages, please take a look. Search for "error" to find the errors.

• Cadenazzo railway station
• La Gardette - Bassens - Carbon Blanc tram stop
• Tvärbanan

Gonnym (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Looks like the day and month were swapped (so there was not 15th month). I fixed Cadenazzo railway station, but for the others I wasn't sure which ones were swapped or not, so you probably want to take a look and check the dates. Here's the template that I found helpful: Template:Start_date Pencilsforall (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing one article. I know about the template. I couldn't verify the dates so I posted here in case someone could. Gonnym (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed La Gardette - Bassens - Carbon Blanc tram stop; the error went back to the original source. Mackensen (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the last one on the basis that if some of the dates were so obviously wrong, all of them would be wrong in the same manner (year, day, month). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Acton GO Station#Requested move 27 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Welshpool and Llanfair Light Railway steam locomotive number 19#Requested move 28 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:EA207 series#Requested move 30 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this morning that a large number of locomotive articles which previously had no short description had been given one… however, I’m strongly of the opinion that the description given was too basic and non-descriptive. I wholly agree that the wikidata descriptions are all too often way too in depth to be used as a short description, but I feel as though the replacement “type of steam locomotive” was too far in the opposite direction.

What do we think short descriptions for locomotives should contain so that we can have some kind of basic consensus on the issue? I’d be in favour of something like, as an example, “type of shunting locomotive in the UK” for a UK-based shunter. Danners430 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @MediaKyle Danners430 (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I was basing it off this chart. MediaKyle (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense... I think this instance though is an example where a small amount of additional information is actually useful to users - there are so many hundreds (thousands?) or types of locomotive, that simply saying something is a "type of steam locomotive" is (I would argue) somewhat unhelpful, since it could be anything from a shunting loco from the 1850s in Europe to a new-build replica in China. Danners430 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. Feel free to start setting them to whatever you think is right. It does say above the chart that they "can be varied if the context allows something better". MediaKyle (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll hold off for now - I just think it would make sense to get agreement on some kind of loose standard we should follow, as right now it's only my opinion :-) Danners430 (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

If you take a look here to see both pages that have a short description and infobox locomotive, there's absolutely zero consistency across the 2600 pages with a short description. I wouldn't worry too much about it and just set them to whatever you think will aid the reader in navigation. MediaKyle (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The zero consistency is precisely why I'm using the opportunity to hopefully get a discussion going - obviously if nothing comes of it then nothing changes, but there's never any harm in trying to get a discussion started. Danners430 (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. I went ahead and left a link to this discussion at WikiProject Short Descriptions, that might solicit some more input. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. I've contributed below. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Here are a sample of the short descriptions for articles about individual steam locomotives (in the order search displayed them to me) along with my comments:

• Stephenson's Rocket Steam locomotive by Robert Stephenson in 1829

  Not sure the builder's name is relevant, especially as it's in the title, but the year is good

• LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman British express steam locomotive

  Good, but I'd add the year and possibly a note it's preserved, e.g. Preserved British express steam locomotive built 1923

• LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard Preserved British steam locomotive

  Again I'd add the year, role and date ("Preserved British express steam locomotive built 1938") I'm on the fence about mentioning it's the speed world record holder - it's key information but I can't think how to express that concisely

• LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado British steam locomotive built in 2008

  This is good, although I might add "express" in there.

• Santa Fe 3751 Preserved American Santa Fe 3751 class 4-8-4 locomotive

  "Santa Fe 3751 class" is redundant to the title and I'm not sure about the wheel arrangement. I'd definitely add "steam"

• Fairy Queen (locomotive) 1855-built steam locomotive in India

  I might add "preserved" or "operational" or something like that but otherwise I think this is good

• Salamanca (locomotive) Early British steam locomotive (built 1812)

  I can't improve on this

• Southern Pacific 4449 Preserved SP GS-4 class 4-8-4 locomotive in Portland, Oregon

  I'd replace "SP GS-4 class 4-8-4" with "express steam" or "express passenger steam" and the year

• Steam Horse locomotive Early British locomotive (1813-1815)

  This is good, I don't know "steam" is needed here given it's in the title but I wouldn't object

• Pere Marquette 1225 Preserved PM N-1 class 2-8-4 locomotive

  I think something like "Preserved American steam locomotive built 1941" would be more useful

• Sierra No. 3 Preserved 4-6-0 steam locomotive in Jamestown, California

  I'd get rid of the 4-6-0 and add "built 1891"

• Pennsylvania Railroad 5550 PRR T-1 class 4-4-4-4 locomotive under construction

  I think something like "American express steam locomotive under construction" would be more useful

• Cherepanov steam locomotive First steam locomotive built in Russia

  This is a good short description imo, I might add the date at the end though.

• Union Pacific 4014 Preserved Union Pacific steam locomotive

  "Union Pacific" is redundant, I'd replace it with "American" and add the date (and maybe role).

Having gone through them I think I can say the key bits of information are "steam locomotive", date and nationality with role or other distinction also sometimes helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps something like the following - "Type of [early/late/preserved/new-build] [nationality] [traction type] [express/freight/passenger/mixed-traffix/shunting] locomotive, built [first built year]. As an example for the Class 08 - "Type of early British diesel-electric shunting locomotive, built 1952" - thoughts? Danners430 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I was focussing on individual locomotives, but that could work for type. We'd need more adjectives for your first set though as I don't think any of those work for something like the e.g. Class 67. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Many modern locos are either general purpose or freight… I’d make the argument that the 67 was designed as a passenger locomotive, but has morphed into a general purpose loco.

At the same time, we could just leave the adjective open to individual interpretation - it would still result in broad uniformity if we said that “field” is for a 1-2 word descriptor of the type of locomotive it is. Danners430 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking about the [early/late/preserved/new-build] field rather than the role field. 67s were intended for fast freight, particularly mail trains, but I agree they are now general purpose. Together with your suggestion I think that would leave:

"(Type of) [period/status] [nationality] [traction type] [role] locomotive, built [first built year]" as the general pattern, with each field being 1-2 or exceptionally 3 words. Examples are better than a rigid list I think. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I like the direction this is heading. However, the pattern above seems a bit too detailed to me. In favour of the WP:SD40 ideal (of which "locomotive, built " already occupy 18), and to allow the short description to be, well, short, I would generally omit "Type of" when reasonable and drop period/status and wording like "under construction" once mentioned above, which should help WP:SDAVOID time-specific adjectives. Describing traction type and role is probably too detailed for an SD, so I'd choose whichever is more descriptive. That leaves "[nationality] [traction type OR role] locomotive, built [first built year]". Let's not get caught up in being too descriptive and forgetting what the purpose of short descriptions is. YuniToumei (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I like that suggestion... For traction type/role, I think it would make sense to prioritise traction type, unless the role is "shunting" - "British shunting locomotive, built 1952" makes more sense for the Class 08 than "British diesel-electric locomotive, built 1952"... but for non-shunting locos, simply saying that they're steam, diesel, electric etc. makes more sense. Danners430 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds great! That's a perfect specification on choosing the more descriptive word. YuniToumei (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

"Type of" is for the difference between e.g. LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard and LNER Class A4, although the latter uses "Class of locomotives designed by Sir Nigel Gresley" which I'd probably change to "Class of British steam locomotives designed 1935" or similar. I agree with Danners re traction type/role. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Although maybe we could dispense with the "class of"/"type of" by just distinguishing between "locomotive" and "locomotives"? The only time this might be confusing is if we have a single article about multiple individual locomotives where the article title is confusable with a class/type, and off the top of my head I can't think of any examples of that (but I've not researched). Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

There’s a few list articles about “list of preserved X locomotives”, such as List of preserved BR Standard Class 9F locomotives… whether we let that influence the decision making or make them a special case though? Danners430 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Most "list of" articles tend not to need short descriptions (as the title itself is adequately descriptive), but for those that do I don't think the general pattern for individual (classes of) locomotives will necessarily be a good fit and so shouldn't form part of the decision making for it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The other consideration that I just remembered (and wished I’d thought of earlier!) - what about articles about locomotive/multiple unit families, such as Alstom Juniper? Might be useful to have “class of” for the individual classes, and “family of” for the family articles Danners430 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I'd go with whatever the article describes them as. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Additionally, instead of prepending it (e.g. "Family of Swiss electric locomotives"), putting it after locomotive as in "Swiss electric locomotive family" would make it start more consistently with the other short descriptions, and save 4 characters. YuniToumei (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I think what we’ve landed at then is the following:

[Nationality] [shunter/motive power] [locomotive/multiple unit] [type/family], built [year first built]

Any objections? Danners430 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

This all seems very sensible. My only suggestion is to include a clear expectation that each field should normally consist of just one or two words, to cover the major aspects of interest to a non-specialist (WP:SDJARGON). Experience shows that in the absence of repeated reminders that short descriptions are supposed to be short, inexperienced editors often include excessive descriptive material in the interest of 'accuracy', and try to turn the SD into a definition, contrary to WP:SDNOTDEF. It's easy to see the nationality and the motive fields becoming excessively long with all possible countries of manufacture and all available motive power combinations. Assuming this WikiProject arrives at a consensus, I'd propose to incorporate it into the guidance at Wikipedia:Short description. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Suggestion for definitions:

• Nationality - one-word description of the region where the subject is based, eg. British, American, Chinese. Where more than one country is appropriate, use the continent, region or simply omit the field.
• Motive power - either “Shunter” where appropriate, or Diesel, Electric, Steam, Hydrogen etc. Must be one word.
• Type or Family dependant on the topic of the page (single class of locomotive or a “family”
• Built - year first built. Not a range, the single year when the first one was built.

Danners430 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• Is nationality based on country of manufacture or wide-spread use? We might want to expand this to a greater area - some SD's for GE or EMD locomotives say "North American", and we may want to suggest that as an option.
• I agree to keep power source short (diesel, electric, steam, hydrogen, etc.). Skip transmission (Do not say diesel-electric, diesel-hydraulic, etc. - just say "diesel") as it's too much detail.
• How do we want to handle dual-modes, e.g. Bombardier ALP-45DP?
• Per my comment way below - I'm leaning against including year, as:
  • Locomotive families may have different first production years for submodels
  • Many locomotives have very long production lifepsans
  • Many very old locomotives are in widespread use today

I'm a bit worried about using a singular year implying an old locomotive family is no longer relevant today 4300streetcar (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nationality should be 1-2 (e.g. "West German" should be allowed), "bi-mode" and similar should be allowable for motive power. I don't think we need to be too prescriptive about built as a class built 1980 is very different to a class built 1980-2010. Type/family/class should match the article, normally one word but exceptionally 2. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on all points.

@4300streetcar in replying to your point too, I don’t think including the year presumes anything - rather it’s a useful navigational tool, which after all is what the SD is for. It’s a very easy way of differentiating different locomotive classes very quickly with a minimal amount of wording. But also agree with @Thryduulf - we could loosen it so that it’s either the first build year for “simple” cases, or a range for more complex cases. Danners430 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The year is also very helpful with regard individual locomotives - a steam loco built in 1830 is a very different thing to a steam loco built in 1930 for example. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I think all these recommendations are sound, and would serve as a good reference point for developing the locomotive short descriptions. There is no one-size-fits-all standard format that's going to fit all of them, it'll have to be decided on a case by case basis. "Type of steam locomotive" was definitely lacking in hindsight, but there's no need for unnecessary detail either. The short description is a navigation tool, not a way of imparting information per se. MediaKyle (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Removing short descriptions en masse, no matter how (un)helpful you think they are and although they're easily amendable if context allows, is even less helpful than the short descriptions themselves – and by a massive margin. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Replying about short descriptions in general really, but I suggest trying a search that brings up some of the articles, so you can see how the descriptions look in a list of search results.

• Do they make it easier to know whether to visit a particular article?
• Do they clutter the results up with too much text to quickly scan through?
• Are they all too similar to be any help?

I think that's the real test: seeing the short descriptions in the context they're meant for, namely search results, popup lists and the like. Try a few searches, including ones that aren't primarily for locomotives (e.g. I'd expect Mallard to bring up ducks as well, though I've not tried it yet). Musiconeologist (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi All! I did a bunch of short descriptions on railways and I'm happy to have discussion on consistency and guidelines. It's a big project. There are about 28k articles without short descriptions that contain 'railway' as a term.[3] Some additional questions to consider in railway articles: 1) Location descriptions: when a railway operates in a single state or province, should the state be listed? What if it's two states? Maybe if it is three or more, it should be described with a broader geographical region e.g., UK or United States 2) Should years be listed in former railways? My reading of the short description guidance is no, but I think it could be useful.

I think after establishing consensus on these topics, we could include this as task on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo under for articles with missing information. Pencilsforall (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Since 28k is quite a lot, and a little more than 2k seem to stem from locos alone, it might be worth considering automatic short descriptions generated by the locomotive infobox by pulling the relevant infobox parameters, if consensus emerges for a basic, generic pattern. While they certainly won't be perfect for each article, I'd argue they'd be better than nothing, and won't harm since one can always manually override them with a better short description.YuniToumei (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I think consensus has been mostly against (further) automated short descriptions, due to the possibility of errors. If there's agreement on what exactly they should be, the ~2200 odd locomotives needing short descriptions could be finished by a couple people within a day or two. As for everything else train-related, that's another discussion. MediaKyle (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I should have read more before posting this. I was thinking of biographies - I add a lot of short descriptions to biographies, and I don't think there's been an effort to automate that. Stations and such might be a good candidate, but as for the locomotives, there's not enough that I'd see a need to make the bot do it. MediaKyle (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The other advantage is that they would deal with any newly created articles lacking SDs, lest that number grow over time when unattended. No need for a bot as they are automatically included with the transclusion of the template generating them.YuniToumei (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, I misunderstood. I had in my head that a bot would be generating the short descriptions based on the infobox. I see what you're saying now, this makes a lot of sense. MediaKyle (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

For classes, I'm leaning towards [Nationality] [Power source] locomotive class E.g. the EMD GP60-series would be "North American diesel locomotive class". Leaning just "diesel", "steam", or "electric" for the traction type (or dual-mode), and not going specifically into "diesel-electric/diesel-hydraulic/etc. as that's a bit too specific for an SD). I'm leaning against passenger/freight distinction, as a lot of locomotives do both, or are families that encompass both (E.g. the EMD GP40 series is generally a freight locomotive, but has numerous passenger variants) I'm personally against year, as a lot of fairly old locomotives are still in widespread service (e.g. EMD GP40-series locomotives are still in widespread use despite originating from the 1960s). Maybe if all examples have been retired we can mention retirement, though even this introduces headaches (e.g. are the EMD F-units from the 1940s truly "retired" if several tourist railroads still use them in active service?), and I would lean against it. 4300streetcar (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

We further refined the thoughts above in a different thread… one downside of talk pages is when the discussion splits, things get lost :) Danners430 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah - sorry about that. I can move the comment into the earlier thread if desired. 4300streetcar (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

No no, I’m just making you aware to have a look at that discussion, as I think it’s advanced a bit :) Danners430 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

This is productive discussion re: short descriptions for locomotive articles. I think broader discussion about consistency in short descriptions for WP:Trains articles generally would be helpful, especially before I embark on a 28k article journey. A train specific version of the short description examples chart, could be helpful for documentation. I’m going to pull together consensus from previous discussions and then I’ll post a draft to a new discussion thread. If this already exists, let me know! Pencilsforall (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

For all subscribed folks, continuation found below at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#More short descriptions. YuniToumei (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikivoyage notes at voy:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#200 years of railway travel that the 200th anniversary of passenger rail travel is coming up in about six months. Does this group want to do anything? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Relatedly, I do have plans to get Granite Railway – the first common carrier railroad in the US – to GA or FA in time for its 200th anniversary next year. (It wasn't a passenger carrier until decades later, though.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to have Sounder commuter rail at TFA on September 18 (its 25th anniversary), so it would be cool to bookend the celebration with another rail TFA. Just need to get this one through GAN and FAC in time. SounderBruce 04:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Those both sound like good ideas.

I wonder whether any of the non-English Wikipedias are thinking about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

British Rail Class 455 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Confederation Line#Requested move 2 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Central Railway Station metro station (Helsinki)#Requested move 30 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Schaarbeek railway station#Requested move 16 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with what train articles have become,

• Why does every link now need to be templated instead of "bracketed"?
• Why are we making it 10x harder for everyone to edit articles to appease train enthusiasts?
• Why can't we bin {{brc}} and {{rws}} and go back to the good ol' days of using [[ ]]?,

In 10 years time, I suspect every linked word for train articles will be wrapped in some sort of template and honestly that sucks, I know nothing will change as a result of this post and I know someone's going to reply telling me why these templates are a fantastic idea and why I'm being a miserable <swear word> but honestly I don't think these templates are an improvement and don't benefit anyone nor do I think they streamline anything or make linking easier. –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Those templates aren't helpful at all and are a barrier to entry for newcomers wishing to start editing these articles. Wikipedia text is intentionally easy to edit and understand and that's a sitewide principle. Get rid of the templates they should be appearing in article text.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree as well. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 04:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

These examples all appear to be specific to United Kingdom articles. I've never used templates like this and I can't recall ever seeing them on articles concerning North America. 22:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the benefit of those two templates either, but as some people seem to like using them when writing the easy solution is to subst them. I'm not sure how much consensus a one-time bot run going through substituting them would need (but as a mostly cosmetic edit it would need an active consensus). Once that was done, I'd add a message to the template that displayed only on preview (I believe this is possible but don't know how) as a reminder that the template should be substituted, and we could get that task added to AWB's general fixes so that it automatically happens when something else meaningful happens to the page for any that aren't substituted.

@Trainsandotherthings List of railway stations in Indonesia is full of {{stnlnk}} (which {{rws}} redirects to) templates, and I think I saw one on a French article recently but don't remember which. By its nature {{brc}} is unlikely to see widespread use outside of UK articles. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Templates always have been an integral part of Wikipedia. I daresay you have no objection to the use of Cite Web or Cite Magazine, or should we start manually typing out citations too?

The biggest advantages that I can see from templating are as follows:

• Standardising styles across articles
• Allowing for a single point of truth if things have to change

To expand upon the latter point, if for whatever reason a decision was reached to make a tweak to how UK rail locomotives/multiple unit articles are named, then we wouldn’t have to go through hundreds of articles changing bracketed links, or rely on redirects - you’d only have to make an edit to a template to update them all.

Honestly, provided the templates have good documentation (which I agree could use some work), then why is there a big problem? Danners430 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to pick up on another point… what on earth does the use of templates have to do with “appeasing train enthusiasts”? They’re used to make life easier with less typing, and to make use of standardised article titles… what does that have to do with someone’s supposed hobby off-wiki? Danners430 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with both your points. For standardization of links, I would suggest replacing {{stnlnk}} – and its wrappers like {{rws}} – with {{station link}} and its wrappers. There is a huge advantage to using {{station link}} - because it pulls from adjacent stations and s-line data modules, every link can be updated with a single edit to the relevant data module. That greatly simplifies cleanup after page moves, especially when creating dab pages. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I’d be wholeheartedly in agreement - I didn’t realise that template existed :) Danners430 (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The underlying data for adjacent stations is a PITA to maintain. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's the logical development of the Trains-editing community's dedication to ever more complex templates (of which we've all been a part). The negative case--what if we didn't use all those templates and went back to raw markup--hasn't really been considered. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Wow I didn't expect anyone to read my rant nevermind agree with it, Thank you all for your comments I'm glad I'm not the only person here that strongly dislikes these templates,

@Danners430, {{Cite web}} et al have been around since forever and helps people add references to articles ..... these templates for all intents and purposes simply removes a custom link to an article or depending on the template you end up with more coding so that it goes to the right article,

Both the "problems" listed sound great and all but they're just WP:Solutions looking for a problem .... we've been doing it this way ([[Article name|Custom name]]) for years and for the most part this has never been a problem, –Davey2010^Talk 14:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Stnlink has existed and been in use since 2007, and Template:British Rail Class link since 2009 - they’re not exactly new, so I don’t really think the argument that Cite Web have been around forever holds weight here. That’s not to disparage your other points, just making that note.

I still don’t understand how the templates can be construed as complex either - the RWS/Stnlink template literally takes a name and spits out the railway station name as a link… and BRC takes a class number and spits out the full link too. The only complex piece is if you want to customise how the link is shown - I fail to see how it’s more complicated than traditional links. Danners430 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Why would I want to write [[Liverpool Lime Street railway station]] when {{rws|Liverpool Lime Street}} will do half the work for me. In most cases, the "railway station" element is obvious from context and would be so irritating to the reader as to be piped away on sight. (In running text, how are the adjacent stations relevant? Especially as the (useful) answer is different according to inter-city v semi-fast v all-stations.) So no, it is not broken and it doesn't need fixing. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The answer is {{subst:rws|Liverpool Lime Street}}, which reduces your typing without making anything more difficult for anybody else. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You still haven’t answered the original question though - in what way is it more difficult for users? How is it more difficult to understand or type {{rws|London Euston}} than it is to type [[London Euston Railway Station|London Euston]]? In actual fact, I’d argue it’s far easier to understand the RWS version… so often I’ve read through the source of large articles and been confronted with a sea of blue links - picking out the actual text becomes a chore. With the much shorter and succinct templates, which produce the same output, it’s much easier to find the edit you need to make. Danners430 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@JMF: You may have misunderstood my comment. {{Station link}} does not display the stations adjacent to the linked station - it just uses the adjacent stations data module to format the link. For example, {{station link|Amtrak|New Haven}} produces New Haven. The reason I recommend use of this template is because every link is specified in one place. If Union Station (New Haven) was moved, a single edit to Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak would allow a large number of the incoming links to be updated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I have been using the {{stnlnk|xyz}} template for years. It is much simpler to understand than piping the station name [[xyz railway station|xyz]]. Similarly, {{brc|000}} in its simplest form is straightforward, although the permutations for things such as adding the word 'class' can be a bit challenging until you look at the documentation. If anything, they are there because the article names are complicated by having 'British Rail Class' prefixes, even when they aren't British Rail classes! Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

although the permutations [...] can be a bit challenging until you look at the documentation This is the heart of the issue - for someone reading the wikitext it is very clear that [[British Rail Class 180|Class 180]] produces the Class 180 seen in the rendered article. {{brc|180|c}} on the otherhand is opaque and makes the article much harder to edit (in both wikitext and visual editor) for those not intimately familiar with the template. This is unlike the citation templates which clearly add value in terms of consistent presentation for something complex, categorisation, metadata, etc. The {{brc}} template offers exactly nothing a link doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Then might I suggest we improve the template rather than just binning it at the first opportunity? I’ve been working on improving it, and asked for assistance multiple times and got none. If people have such strong opinions on how it’s structured, then instead of moaning and griping they could stand up and lend a hand! Danners430 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

By asked for assistance multiple times and got none, do you mean that you asked at Template talk:British Rail Class link? That page had only three watchers (four since I added myself just now), I'm guessing that you are one of them; but I have no way of finding out who the other two are. One might be Mattbuck (talk · contribs), who created the template but rarely edits these days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I also asked at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Template changes because I knew the template didn't have many watchers. In the end, I deployed the changes myself, and lo and behold there was a bug which I had to fix... I didn't ask in this particular forum because BRC is specific to UK rail Danners430 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've given up fixing wikilinks but the use of templates in railway stations was a major hurdle on the learning process at WP:DPWL. The arcane intricacies needed to produce a simple wikilink require the largest section in the guide for new disambiguators. I am sure my colleagues would be delighted to see these unhelpful templates replaced by understandable standard syntax. Certes (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

And I'm sure the template using- and editing-community would welcome suggestions with open arms - it never fails to amaze me the readiness for people to dismiss out of hand anything different without even making the most basic attempt at voicing concerns and working with the "opposing" side to improve the problems you perceive. Nobody is denying there must be problems - otherwise nobody would be complaining... but how is anyone meant to improve anything if suggestions aren't forthcoming? Danners430 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that any changes to the template wouldn't solve the fundamental problem that these templates, and any new or changed templates doing the same job, turn something that is very simple into something that is needlessly complicated. If you like using the templates when editing, fine, just subst them so that you get the benefits while the rest of us don't get the problems. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I make a genuine request @Thryduulf... Three times now you've stated that the templates turn something that is very simple into something that is needlessly complicated - and twice already, I've asked you to clarify what you mean by this statement. So I'm going to ask a third time - What about these templates makes them difficult to use? What's difficult about understanding that {{brc|170}} generates a link to the wikipedia article about the class 170, or that {{rws|London Euston}} generates a link to the wikipedia article about the railway station in that location? I fail to understand how that's needlessly complicated in any way, shape or form... Danners430 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to explain it multiple times: Wiki-links are simple to understand, simple to read, and simple to interact with. You can look at [[British Rail Class 170|Class 170]] and require no other knowledge to know what it does or how to amend that to display "Class 170s". If I'm looking to make that change I'm likely going to open the section for editing and ctrl-f for "Class 170" and it's going to come up blank. I eventually find {{brc|170}}, now how do I make the change I want? I have to pause what I'm doing, load a separate tab, navigate to Template:brc, and scour the documentation to learn that I need to add the cryptic "|cs" to the template. Now imagine I'm a new editor who isn't very comfortable with templates. Now let's look at the experience in the Visual editor - I find what I want to edit and discover that it's generated from a template and so I need to open a dialog to edit that, but because there is no template data associated with the template I get a meaningless box with a yellow warning saying "This template is missing TemplateData, and its parameters have been autogenerated. As a result the template and its parameters lack descriptions. There might be additional information on the template's page.". At this point I'm going to either give up (I've wasted my time, the article isn't fixed, and potentially a new editor isn't recruited so other articles don't get fixed or written) or just delete the template and use a plain link (the template just made things needlessly difficult). {{rws}} does have some template data so the visual editor experience isn't quite as bad (but there are still only absolutely minimal instructions and no explanation), but I still have to read and understand multiple boxes, and learn what format it wants things in, just to get exactly the same output as a bog standard wikilink - I still have to know what the article is titled, but additionally I need to know what bits of the title are the station name and what bits are the location and there is no way to know if I've linked to the right article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The Template Data I wholly agree with - and I disagree that it's a fundamental thing that can't be fixed... perhaps it's time to add template data and suddenly the issue with the visual editor is no more. All we need is someone willing to add it, as unfortunately I've never touched template data before.

Another point you validly make is but there are still only absolutely minimal instructions and no explanation - again, that can be solved by improving template data and the template documentation... again, I've asked for help but people seem to be hell-bent on destroying the template without even trying to assist in making it better.

Finally, your point about the station location - while it's valid, this is why we have standardised names - all station names follow the same naming pattern, so they can be easily found. Again, the templates can be updated to assist with easily finding station names.

Apologies if I'm coming across a little annoyed... it just irks me when people jump on a bandwagon to get rid of something that's been in use for over 15 years without even once trying to constructively improve it. Danners430 (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that even if all the possible improvements to the templates are made, they would still be inferior to simple wikitext links for the reasons I've tried to explain multiple times already. Clearly I haven't articulated it well enough as you haven't understood, but I can't think of any other way to say it. Maybe Davey2010 can? Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

They are inferior in one way, and superior in another - they're far superior in that some editors fine them easier to use and much faster to add and edit than full wikilinks. Obviously not everyone, but some (and not a small minority, given I'm far from the only user of these templates. I just happen to use them a lot when GNOMEing.

I think the two points under debate here (your point about "inferiority" and my counter argument about ease of use for some editors) end up being personal preference of editors... and from my understanding, we shouldn't be writing dictat to prioritise the preferences of some editors over others unless there are clear advantages one way or the other. I don't think there really are in either direction unless I'm missing something? Danners430 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue with personal preference when editing is exactly why I propose substituting them - those who find them helpful when writing can continue to use them, but those of us who come along later and find them a significant added burden are not impacted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Except I'm not just talking about the creation of links - I'm also talking about the editing of links. As I mentioned earlier, I also find them exceedingly helpful when searching through the source for specific text or links, as they don't clutter up the text as much. Substituting them removes that advantage entirely, and means they're only ever useful when creating the link in the first instance. Danners430 (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The extensive problems I articulated above, especially for new editors, far far outweigh marginally shorter but crypic wikitext. When searching wikitext for a link I always search for the wikilink syntax (because why on earth would I not?) so the mild advantage for you is actually a significant disadvantage to others. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I would concur with this point Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 04:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel as though I'm beginning to take over the topic somewhat, which isn't healthy for discussion, so I'm going to step away for a day or so (unless someone is asking me a question specifically). Perhaps @10mmsocket, @Mattdaviesfsic, @Maurice Oly, @Murgatroyd49, @XAM2175 or @XtraJovial would like to comment? Just because I know you edit in the UK rail areas :-) Danners430 (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally I can't see the difficulty in using the templates, they make life a lot easier when editing IME. The main problem is finding what templates actually exist, is there a list somewhere? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been using {{stnlnk}} since at least July 2009. That's to say, less than three months after I joined. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Whenever editing articles I prefer to use [[]], as for me it is easier as I don't always use source editing I like to edit using Visual Editor when I can.
As far as I know Visual Editor does not allow you to add templates like [[British Rail Class {{{1}}}|Class {{{1}}}]], [[{{{1}}} railway station|{{{1}}}]] or [[{{{1}}} Station|{{{1}}}]]. Maurice Oly (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Would agree with Thryduulf's - especially the last point above - and Maurice Oly's points wholeheartedly.

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leven railway station (Fife)#Requested move 19 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

As of today Template:S-line has no more stations that use it's system of sub-templates. Its 1.2k transclusions left (down from 18,335 December 2020) are mostly (or all?) UK pages. Template:Rail line which is similar is still in use with with 10k transclusions. Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Glad I could help with this. S-line is currently being invoked through Template:S-rail-national. There are no sub-templates left so the invocation count should be identical to Template:Rail line. Cards84664 19:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

IIRC we're waiting for Module:Adjacent stations/Great British Railways. Cards84664 19:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Ebbw Valley Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I WP:COPYWITHINed and spiced things up a bit to create a Classic rail in China article. Please help me expand it. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Metrovagonmash 81-717/81-714#Requested move 30 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at an article translated from the German Wikipedia (Arlberg railway) and it does not have a route map. I have decided to quickly make one based on the German version, and run into trouble: I cannot find any mechanized way to translate German BS descriptions into Routemap ones. The documentation I can find here is old and uses means that appear to not exists anymore (for example, "/safesubst" version of BS templates were apparently deleted). I checked the archives of this page and also came up short. Thus, the question: is there currently any algorithm to convert the BS notation (of the German Wikipedia in particular) to the {{Routemap}}? Викидим (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move Talk:Waterloo railway station, Sydney #Requested move 31 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi All- I plan on tackling short descriptions in the train space more generally and I pulled together previous consensus across article types to create a more rail specific table for some consistency on short descriptions. I am not a locomotively inclined editor, but I tried to pull consensus from previous discussions. Honestly, I probably won't be doing locomotives. A reminder, in general, short descriptions should be short WP:SDSHORT. There a few places where I deviate from WP:SDAVOID, mostly in the description of former railways and length when including the province and country. Looking for any suggestions/comments before I am too far along in the journey. Pencilsforall (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Totally missed this, so I added a section link in the old discussion to notify any relevant people. YuniToumei (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Good work on the table so far! A few things from my side: I'm not convinced of deviating from WP:SDAVOID to state "former", as I don't see what makes railroads and trains different from other articles to warrant this different treatment, and as it risks making the short description too long to be useful. The penultimate entry's example short desc should have "early" removed as it directly does not follow the provided scheme in the same row. Same thing with the last entry, it should be "British steam locomotive class (built 1935)" if you follow the scheme.YuniToumei (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I agree with omitting "former" to be consistent with WP:SDAVOID. Unless others disagree, I'll update this table and the previous discussion on former/defunct. I'll also update the SDs for pages I have included "former", but it might take a bit to revise all of them. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you also update the table below about "former" and add an explanative comment about preferring "shunter" when its the type per the discussion above under § Short descriptions? Once that is done, it would be awesome to collect consensus to get this posted to WP:WikiProject Trains/Style advice and link there from the table at WP:WikiProject Short descriptions. YuniToumei (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok- I updated the table to remove "former" and added information about shunting locomotives. I agree about getting broader consensus and posted outside of this talk page (discussions get lost in other topics over time).

Another question: Did we have consensus on including the year built for locomotives? There isn't really a parallel over at WP:SDDATES but I can see it as useful to disambiguate if there are multiple locomotives with a similar short description. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above seemed to have rough consensus. They may help differentiation, but also make short descriptions too long for certain screensizes and also a bit cluttered. However, I think it might not matter that much as we did place it at the end, so when a short description is truncated, only the info with lowest priority (the year) is lost. Perhaps @Danners430 @MediaKyle @Thryduulf @4300streetcar @MichaelMaggs @Musiconeologist have more input. It would be awesome to hear from people from both the train and the short desc wikiprojects. YuniToumei (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

My only comment is to do with the use of "railway station", "railway" and "railway company" - much as I dislike americanisms, they do have a place on Wikipedia... so perhaps a note to say that correct national variations to be used - so "railway stations" becomes "train/railroad stations" in NA, or "railway" becomes "railroad" in the same? I do note that it's already been included in the "biography" row, but if this is to become semi-formal policy, then perhaps we need to be explicit by adding a note in the Notes column. Danners430 (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Good points. I personally think railway/railroad; train/railway station are pretty interchangeable in American English, even for those who are not train enthusiasts, although railroad and train station are more common. I added these alternates as notes in the table. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the rough consensus in previous discussions re: years built for locomotives. It does make the SD long, but the note that the potentially truncated information is year is a good point. Updated the table. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Considering this has almost rolled off into the archives without further comments, I encourage you to be bold and push this table to the style advice page I linked above once you're satisfied with all the entries. One tiny more thing that I think should be changed is that the wording traction type / power source should be made consistent for the guidance on locomotive and locomotive class. They should arguably both say "traction type OR role". Cheers! YuniToumei (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Examples of short descriptions for train articles.

Article Type	Format	Example Article	Suggested Short Description	Notes	Link to Discussion
Station	Railway station in [town/area/region], [country]	Flamatt_Dorf_railway_station	Railway station in Wünnewil-Flamatt, Switzerland	"Train station" may be used if more appropriate for the location
Metro/Rapid Transition Station	Rapid transit station in [city location]	11th_Street_station_(SEPTA)	Rapid transit station in Philadelphia		Talk:Marshfield_station
Railway	Railway in [town/area/region], [country]	Lake_Shore_and_Michigan_Southern_Railway	Railway in the United States	If railway operates in one or two states, list states; if three or more; list larger region; do not list as former or defunct per SD:AVOID; "Railroad" may be used if more appropriate term for location; Narrow-gauge may be noted
Railroad company	Railway company in [town/area/region], [country]	Allentown_Railroad	Railway company in Pennsylvania	Do not list as former/dufunct If railroad is no longer in business, list as former
Biography	[country adjective] [what the person is known for]	James_J._Hill	American railroad promoter and financier (1838–1916)	Same as "person" on WP:Short Description
Locomotive	[Nationality] [traction type OR role] locomotive (Year built)	Salamanca_(locomotive)	British steam locomotive (built 1812)	If shunting locomotive, replace traction type with shunting role	Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Short_descriptions
Locomotive class	[Nationality] [Power source] [traction type OR role] locomotive class (year built)	LNER_Class_A4; British Rail Class 08	British steam locomotive class (built 1935); Diesel–electric shunting locomotives	If class of shunting locomotive, replace power source with shunting role	Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Short_descriptions

Treeditor (talk · contribs) has been adding short descriptins to railway articles that are pretty much useless. Some days ago, they slapped "Class of train rolling stock" across several dozen articles; now they're using "British rolling stock". Often these are replacing existing shortdescs that were meaningful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you give examples of existing short descriptions that were "meaningful" and compliant with WP:SDAVOID? Most of the articles had no local short description before. Treeditor (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

For example, you reinstated "Former EMU of the London Underground" on London Underground R Stock. "EMU" is jargon. Treeditor (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

For example, you removed a meaningful short description, replacing it with one that might as well not be there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It can certainly be discussed if "Metropolitan Railway from 1927 to 1962" should be kept, but "used" should be removed per WP:SDAVOID. If we're aiming for consistency, I don't see why "British electric rolling stock" isn't compliant with the table above? Treeditor (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wairarapa Line#Requested move 24 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Beideman Station, Philadelphia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven't checked them all, but just about every article in Category:SEPTA bus routes is a streetcar route that became a bus route. The bus routes probably aren't notable in themselves, but the streetcar routes probably are. That creates some odd issues, such as SEPTA Route 104, which was converted to bus operation long before SEPTA was on the scene. Turning Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company or Philadelphia Suburban Transportation into a blue link might be a partial solution. Red Arrow Lines redirects to D (SEPTA Metro), which isn't ideal. Mackensen (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been seeing a very high quantity of edits like this mass adding categories to locomotive models. I'm concerned this is adding clutter and a misuse of the categorization system. It makes perfect sense to put Canadian National 7470 in Category:Canadian National Railway locomotives. Does it make sense to put EMD SD40-2, of which over 4,000 examples were built for a wide variety of operators, in that category? Are we seriously going to have 50+ categories for owners on popular models like the SD40-2? I really don't see how this meets WP:DEFINING. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I concur. These sorts of categorizations have been rejected before for a reason. Imagine if there was a category for every operator of a Boeing 737. This is no different. oknazevad (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree and I'm glad you said something. I have a few questions. What about cases like Pennsylvania Railroad class L1, where a class of locomotives was explicitly built for one operator? Or the GE P30CH, ostensibly in GE's catalog, but in practice only sold to Amtrak, although the Southern Pacific did lease some. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on my reading of DEFINING, a class built for one operator is a valid use case for categorization by operator. I'd say the same is true of the P30CH. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Walking this out further then:

• Pennsylvania Railroad class E44: categorized for the Pennsylvania, but not Penn Central, Amtrak, Conrail, or NJ Transit.
• Virginian EL-C: categorized for Virginian Railway, but not Norfolk and Western, New Haven, Penn Central, or Conrail.
• GE E60: no categorization, sold to multiple companies at the outset.

Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

High Speed 1 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion regarding the power output of these units, as there is some contention around the voltage in the source. Would it be possible to get some additional eyes on the topic? Many thanks! Danners430 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I've just created National Railways as a disambiguation page (well, it's sort of a hybrid disambig and set index), but it maybe could do with some improvement. Relatedly, I've nominated the redirect National railway (current target State-owned enterprise) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 12#National railway with an eye to possibly retargetting it to National Railways or National Railway (the latter being a railroad in the USA planned in the 1870s). Please leave your comments at the linked discussion rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

1. Should articles on Indian train services, when they are not especially notable on their own, be deleted?
2. If so, can they be nominated in larger bunches at AFD (or through PROD)?

Please consider not only notability, but also WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE. NS-Merni (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Going through these articles, it is clear enough that the vast majority of these are just regurgitations of timetable, route and train formation information, mostly sourced from sites like [4] (a crowd-sourced unofficial timetable database not unlike a wiki). The information obviously changes every year, too. There are two main concerns I have with these articles:

1. WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTGUIDE. This kind of information doesn't really belong in a wiki.
2. Notability. Most of these articles are on random individual train services running at most once a day (and often a few times a week). These are not "lines" but individual timetabled services. Having articles on each of them does not seem to satisfy notability. Coverage in sources on most of them is totally routine regarding delays, timetable changes and so on. There are only a few which have their own historical importance or other significance.

Here is some data on these articles and here is a list of AFD discussions on them in the past. In particular, this nomination, which originally aimed to delete 244 articles, received a deal of negative feedback on its size and a "Procedural keep" result, with several comments that an RfC may be worthwhile.

I want to get the community's idea on whether these articles should be kept in general or only if the particular service is notable in itself. If the latter, also whether it would be suitable to nominate them for AfD in larger bundles (after of course doing due research on each of them to check if there is significant non-routine coverage), and if so how large. NS-Merni (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Certainly any that aren't individually notable should go.

I'm not aware of batch size limits but I'd say don't go mad as that would make it difficult for interested editors to review. I'm also not sure if this type of thing is suitable for a bundle at all? Wiser heads will no doubt advise. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer: There are no batch size limits that have been agreed and written down; but there is a technical limit, which unfortunately isn't quantifiable. Consider: every AfD page uses at least three templates ({{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}, {{la}} and {{Find sources AFD}}); and a bundled nomination - such as would be appropriate for these cases - would have one {{la}} for each different article, plus one each of the other two. All of these will get transcluded, along with the AfD proper, to the daily AfD page. If there are too many nominated articles, all of those {{la}} can max out the WP:PEIS for the daily AfD page. This has happened before; but we cannot say "it will fall over when there are x articles up for deletion", because x varies according to several factors. Apart from that, the AfD regulars might complain about being swamped. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Neither question can be accurately answered with a single word. Any articles about train services that are not individually notable should be deleted, merged and/or redirected depending on the specifics of the subject. These are rarely suitable to large bundles, but small bundles of closely related articles (e.g. ones about which similar levels of sourcing exist and which could be merged to the same target) can be acceptable. How big is too big depends on the similarity of the bundled articles, the volume of search results (if there are only a handful of pages to look at it's very easy to determine the depth of coverage, if there are hundreds then this obviously takes more time and effort), the volume of sources that might be reliable and/or in-depth (for the same reason), the ease of access of the sources and the number of other concurrent discussions about similar topics (in this case articles about transportation services and articles about Indian railways). It's also important to stress that many sources related to Indian railways are not written in English. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of your last point, being an Indian and knowing two Indian languages! But in practice, it's quite rare that there is important coverage in non-English sources that doesn't make its way into English sources in India at least eventually. (It's a different matter for purely routine and local information.) The point is definitely worth noting though. NS-Merni (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Certainly not in batches There are undoubtedly numerous articles in that class that are non-notable, but determining that notability is typically going to require more work than a quick web search, work that editors in general have historically either been unwilling or poorly equipped to do. So I think it absolutely needs to be on a case-by-case basis.
  Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Notability is not the only thing that needs to be considered, but also WP:NOT.

  Leaving that aside, in your opinion, what "more work" beyond web and perhaps Google Books searches would be needed to nominate (taking a random example) Satavahana Express for deletion? NS-Merni (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, but lack of notability is itself a reason to delete, or merge and redirect. Notability does not even apply if the material is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, in which case complete deletion is appropriate. If an article is nominated for deletion and is found to contain material that can be merged into a related topic, merge and redirect is an appropriate close for RfD. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  but also WP:NOT — I don’t believe that’s an issue at the topic level. If a topic is passing GNG, the article should exist. WP:NOT mainly applies to content.

  Most train services in the US and certain other countries are notable and have articles.

  Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  From what I can see, it is routes that have articles in the US. For instance, there aren't articles on each individual departure of the Acela. (Besides, the US has way fewer passenger train routes and services than India) NS-Merni (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support batch deletion of all articles of unnamed services (ex. "[TERMINAL A] - [TERMINAL B] Express") There's a lot of articles where the "name" is just the two terminals and the type of services. It is really unlikely that such articles would be notable so they would be a good choice for a batch removal. Train services that have an actual name have better hopes in both sourcing availability & ability to find those sources so those articles should still be nominated individually. Jumpytoo Talk 04:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's not so simple! For instance, the Mumbai CSMT–Chennai Express has been running for over a century with generic names, and has even had a movie named after it -- IMO this would definitely be notable. There are other such examples too. On the other hand, there are plenty of services (as a random example, Samudra Kanya Express) that have names despite not being significant in any other way. NS-Merni (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  That unnamed train you linked seems to be actually a named train, looking at the Commons images it has a name of "Chennai Express". We can have a way to call out these exception cases before doing batches. Regarding your second point, I agree named trains could also be not notable, I am only suggesting that they should still be nominated individually as what would be needed currently. Jumpytoo Talk 02:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Articles that do not meet notability criteria are unsuitable as stand-alone Wikipedia articles. If the information is encyclopedic in nature it should go in a section in an appropriate article on a related topic, with a suitable redirect. If the information is not encyclopedic it should not be in an encyclopedia. This is standard practice. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Part of the reason I started this RFC is exactly to decide whether this kind of information is "encyclopedic" or not! NS-Merni (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  That is not a question asked in the RfC, so you are unlikely to get a useful answer to it here · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Batch deletion still requires each article to be considered on its merits or lack thereof. Batch nomination works best for groups that are obviously similar in quality. The procedure will get bogged down if there are some keeps, some deletes and some borderlines in the batch. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Suggestion First, thanks for taking the time to embark on this. Can I suggest that you be bold and make a start. If you feel batches would be easier, go for three or four at a time taking note of the views above and keeping the criteria for each batch as tight as possible. Then see how it goes after the first one or two batches.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Deal on a case-by-case basis: Plenty of trains have a significant history, heritage, fanfare and coverage associated with them. Just because some of them may be unnamed is not a valid reason for batch deletion. Conversely, some named services might not be notable enough too. Either way, they should be dealt on a case-by-case basis, and where 3 or 4 services are somehow related to each other, then only use batches only for those related articles. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: No, I oppose giving carte blanche for a pig in a poke. The category of articles on Indian train services seems a large tree of over a thousand articles to be throwing vague allegations against and asking for blanket permission to just wipe out at whim without stating any specific tests or methods, nor showing any evidence or prior discussions or even specific WP guidance issues justifying this level of godlike power. Nuking a whole set of categories with a couple thousand articles and comprising the work of what seems tens of thousands of editors in perhaps a hundred thousand edits seems just horribly destructive and needing more than a 40-word request to get. It also seems to want more power than WP:AfD allows for even individual article deletions, or even that WP admins get to play with. Look, if there seems widespread issues, respect that others have apparently felt otherwise and ping a number of those thousands of editors and start a discussion -- do not open with a RFC asking for godlike power. Perhaps a discussion will evolve a consensus on criteria to keep or delete, perhaps there would be merger or elimination of stubs, or perhaps there would emerge the process and criteria on how to WP:NUKE a category. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support batch deletion of all articles that describe WP:ROTM services, with "run-of-the-mill" defined as "train does not even have its own name". The fact that the railroad did not bother even to name the train, clearly shows its non-notability IMHO. In the articles we are discussing here this fact is usually hidden behind a made-up name like "[TERMINAL A] - [TERMINAL B] Express". These names are WP:OR and cannot be found in any sources that are not derived from the Wikipedia itself, due to that WP:V is impossible. I have tried to verify the data listed in the articles for many of the trains, and practically always came up short. I have chosen a truly randomly selected by me service Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express as an illustration. There are no sources, but an abundance of details that can be either true or bogus, and a made-up article name makes it impossible to find which is the case here (Google search yields just the Wikipedia mirrors). At least for this type of articles, an individual deliberation is likely to become a group waste of time (I did burn few hours of my life on some of these articles, never finding any supporting sources, all were eventually deleted). I have no issues with going in limited, but sizable batches (say, 50 per week), so that an opportunity of fixing some of articles is provided. Smaller batches are problematic, as they require editors to engage way too often. --Викидим (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is absolutely untrue. In India, trains are usually either named when introduced, or never named at all. It is absurd to assume that all trains have a predetermined notability at the time of introduction. Furthermore, India has distinct naming scheme compared to other countries: Vande Bharat, Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto form the premium class of trains, with individual trains identified by source or destination or both. They are not named individually, yet many of them are notable in their own right (e.g., Howrah Rajdhani). Whereas non-premium trains are the ones which are named (e.g., Vivek Express), or which may only be identified by s/d/both (e.g., Darjeeling Mail). In either of the three cases you would find plenty of trains that are indeed notable, or not notable. You can't classify an entire class as non-notable. That would be absurd. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  (1) I am not an expert in the India train system, thus IMHO in my statement. (2) I proposed to consider the trains with "names" invented here in Wikipedia as non-notable. Your examples are of a different kind: Howrah Rajdhani and Darjeeling Mail both apparently have names that are well known. (3) This is not the case with my example: nobody apparently calls any train service in India by the name "Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express". This is the type of article I have described (and it looks like there are hundreds of articles like my example). Викидим (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  It is in fact an existing train service and the name is not invented here. And thus, you do agree that a blanket catch-all approach is bad policy. I'm not prohibiting any and all deletions of train articles, I'm only saying that bulk nominations are massively disruptive. If you think some train is not notable bring it to AfD on a case-by-case basis, and bulk nominations may only be used when two or more subjects have an extremely strong affinity to each other. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 01:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I double-checked, and the only place outside of Wikipedia where the words "Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express" are used is the site "indiantrain.in". I do not know what the status of this site is (does not look to be official or peer-reviewed), and I still think that "Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express" is an English term coined here and not used in the real world. Викидим (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  The train had existed, but appears to have been cancelled since 2015 or 2016. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is that without a name I am unable to verify any statement about a particular train. For example, when I read the Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express (an example above), the train 22913 / 22914 was going between Mumbai Central and New Delhi and was discontinued in 2015. If I trust Bandra Terminus–Saharsa Humsafar Express, the train with the same number(s) 22913 / 22914 is still going between Bandra Terminus and Saharsa Junction. Which one I (and any other reader) is supposed to believe? This is the problem that arises when an object is so WP:ROTM that is does not even have its own name (and train numbers are clearly being reused). Викидим (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  I have not opposed the deletion of articles that fail Notability. I'm only opposing bulk nominations which is in question here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Викидим: Are Indian train service numbers necessarily unique? They're not in the UK. For instance, of the hundreds of trains running in the UK today (1 June 2025), I find that the headcode number 2V47 has been assigned to all of these:

  • 15:00 Banbury to Oxford
  • 16:00 Welwyn Garden City to London Kings Cross
  • 16:21 Ilkley to Leeds
  • 17:20 London Waterloo to Kingston
  • 17:25 Upminster to Romford

  The main requirements for duplication of headcodes are that there cannot be an area (station or group of stations controlled by the same signal box) served by both of the two trains, or if there is, at least twelve hours must elapse between them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have no clue about uniqueness of train numbers, sorry. My point is that absent a commonly accepted unique name there is no easy way to do any WP:V, much less verify the WP:N. The notable train services IMHO all have some names, whether official or colloquial, that can be used as an article title (cf. Orient Express). Absence of such name points to a classical WP:ROTM situation: for example, all houses on any street of any major city have numbers and we can potentially dig out a lot of paperwork about each one of them, but this does not make them encyclopedically notable. If something (say, a small hill) doesn't even have a name, we do not write an article about it ("Hill with coordinates ..."), why should an exception be made for train services? Викидим (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  In India, train numbers are unique. A train with the same number will make the journey with the same set of stations enroute, and the same exact schedule (though delays are common) on one or more days of the week. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  How can you then explain the situation with Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express and Bandra Terminus–Saharsa Humsafar Express, as discussed above? These two share the 22913/22914 numbers. Викидим (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  The latter was introduced after the former ceased its service. For trains that no longer exist, it is common practice to reassign their train numbers to newer trains. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. The trains in question do not have any solid identifier, then. Викидим (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  I mean identifiers are often reused when the old thing being identified ceases to exist. Take IATA code BKK for example, which was reassigned from Don Mueang International Airport to Suvarnabhumi Airport. But, yeah in this case the train is non-notable and may be deleted. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The article Rostokino (Little Ring of the Moscow Railway) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Rail yards are not inherently notable. WP:TNT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Taken care of. Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Fatih railway station be moved to Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi-Fatih railway station, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Eugene V. Debs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It has been proposed that GWR Cathedral Class be renamed and moved to GWR proposed Hawksworth Pacific locomotive.

Comments are welcome. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rock Island Line#Requested move 30 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

There are dozens of unsourced stubs of Japanese train stations in Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2011 and Category:Articles lacking sources from November 2011. Can we rescue a few? Merge a few? Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Usually the Japanese Wikipedia will have sourcing; I will take a look at a few when I have time Jumpytoo Talk 17:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maroochydore railway line#Requested move 2 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm drafting an article about Japanese Pacific locomotives built for Thailand. The problem is that I don't know what to make the title of the article based on the guidance of the style advice. The Royal State Railways of Siam (RSR) did use letter classification, but that extended only to a limited number of locomotives and only extended to "E". The locomotives I am writing about definitely did NOT use this locomotive classification system, and I can only go off the running numbers, which are 283-92 and 821-50. The locomotives have been called the "Cx50" as in the Thai article, but I have been told that this is fanon, in addition to the article having dubious sourcing and reliability (original research). Do I go off the running numbers and title the article "RSR 283-92 and 821-50?" Or is there another way to title the article? Yugystudios (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

How does the source refer to them? Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Diagrams by Ramaer on p. 83 refer to them as "RSR Nos 283-292." Diagrams by Ramaer on p. 93 refer to them as "RSR Nos 821-) 849-850 (oil burning)", but for the sake of consistency, I will refer to them as "RSR Nos 821-850." But Ramaer on the same page refer to them as "RSR numbers 821-50." It ha also been referred to as RSR series 283-92 on a diagram at p. 94. Let me know if you need any more examples. Yugystudios (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive title states Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.. It feels like there isn't a single set name for these locomotives so a descriptive title is the way to go. Based on the principles listed in the criteria section of the article titles policy my suggestion would be "RSR locomotives 283–292 and 821–850" with redirects from variations (e.g. without "locomotives", or "nos", "numbers", "series", etc instead). That is no more than a suggestion though, others may have a better idea. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand, the guidelines provided are useful. Thank you for your assistance, it is much appreciated. Yugystudios (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The only thing I would amplify from the suggestion above is that you use full numbers in the range naming, e.g 283–292 not 283–92. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you! Yugystudios (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yugystudios, are you going by an older version of the Thai article? Revisions in 2024 have removed all mentions of the CX50 name. In any case, "RSR locomotives 283–292 and 821–850" isn't optimal as a title as it utterly fails the WP:recognizability criterion (no one but the most extreme enthusiast will recognise the topic from the numbers). And it's not accurate either since the article also includes the five locomotives used by Jordan. Thai sources most consistently just refer to them as "Pacific steam locomotives", and this is reflected in the local English-language sources based on them.[5][6][7] If we're going to use a descriptive title, I think it would make more sense for it to be some variation of "Japanese Pacific locomotives built for Thailand", as worded in your opening statement. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight.

Firstly, I was going off another user's draft last updated on 2023-10-23, which is most likely an older version. The "Cx50" name may have been recognised as "fanon" and promptly removed, but I am informed the entire article still has questionable reliability, to the extent it cannot be allowed on EN WP, some Thai rail enthusiasts told me as of recent. Regarding the title, based on your recommendations, I think the title would be "RSR Japanese Pacific locomotives" or something, since only rail enthusiasts with reliable information would know their running numbers, like you said.

Reply back with any concerns/questions. Thanks! Yugystudios (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• Ramaer, Roel (2009). The Railways of Thailand (2 ed.). Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus. ISBN 978-974-480-151-7. Yugystudios (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:GWR Cathedral Class#Requested move 5 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible for something under construction (ie, Beaulieu Park railway station, Réseau express métropolitain) for GA? I'm planning to get the former to GA, the latter is just another example. JuniperChill (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not, at least in theory. One of the GA criteria is that the article is stable and comprehensive, and that's going to be tricky with something that's actively progressing in the real world, but not impossible. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I just couldn't think of any stations that were nominated for GA during construction (or refurbishment). London Bridge station was nominated in October 2018, after the redevelopment was complete in January 2018. It was always my plan to nominate Beaulieu for GA a month after construction anyways, which should be before 2026. JuniperChill (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb is that design should be finalized and construction actively underway. That means that major surprises like cancellation or major redesign are unlikely (though not impossible), and that the design/layout and planning history sections can be more or less at their final form. A GA-quality project/station article should only need relatively procedural updates as things proceed (construction milestone was reached on XX date, opening occurred on YY date) rather than major rewriting. I will note that films are only eligible for GA after release (WP:GAN#FILM), but that's a very different situation where major parts of the article (plot, reception, earnings) cannot be written until then.

Personally, I've gotten one project (Green Line Extension) and a number of stations (Gilman Square station, East Somerville station, etc) to GA during construction, and nominated others where the review happened after opening. I know SounderBruce has gotten some under-construction stations to GA as well. Only once (Freetown station) have I had any pushback to nominating an under-construction station, and that was based on personal idiosyncrasies of an inexperienced reviewer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Kolkata Metro has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The articles Paris–Saint-Germain-en-Laye railway and Paris-Saint-Lazare to Saint-Germain-en-Laye Line are both translations of the same French Wikipedia article, and they are nearly identical. I'm wondering if anyone here has insight on which version is preferable or which title is more appropriate for this sort of thing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on other articles on French railway lines, the naming convention appears to be "Start–End railway" meaning Paris–Saint-Germain-en-Laye railway is the correct title. I've not looked at the articles in enough detail to say which is better. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Csn anyone give geographical coordinates for the planned Washington North Metro station? This seems to be completely planned, so there must be a site plan somewhere. — The Anome (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The official FAQ here says that the locations of the three stations have not yet been decided. Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Transit Access Pass#Requested move 20 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear good people: There remains a backlog of 48,000 articles at Category:Articles lacking sources, many hundreds of which are train station stubs. Can a few folks please help by adding reliable sources to at least some of these stubs? Bearian (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

An example: Herentals railway station. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

An example of a railway: Ranna–Auerbach railway. This project will be hours and hours of fun! Bearian (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You and I clearly have different ideas of fun. This Wikiproject is not your personal army, so I don't understand why you repeatedly show up on this talk page to demand we source articles for you. We are all aware many articles lack sourcing. We are also all volunteers and have our own lives and our own projects we work on. Why do you expect others to drop everything for an article on a closed branch line in Germany? Do you think I have a pile of books on German railways sitting in my home? Yes, it would be nice if we had no unsourced articles. However, I work full time and don't really want to spend my limited free time on something I have zero background knowledge of or resources about, in a language I don't speak, just because you ask me to. Maybe ask the original author why they felt it was ok to create the article with no sources in the first place?

It may not be your intention, but these repeated requests that others do work for you come across as demanding and disrespectful of other editors' time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Macquarie University railway station#Requested move 22 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 15:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hunter Street railway station#Requested move 22 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 15:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

An editor has requested that British Rail Class 93 (Stadler) be moved to British Rail Class 93, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bloomingdale Trail Park#Requested move 25 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cawang LRT Station#Requested move 27 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bekasi Barat LRT Station#Requested move 28 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sydney Trains A & B sets#Requested move 28 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chelsea railway station, Melbourne#Requested move 5 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tomiĉo (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of unsourced railway stations stubs, mostly in France, Japan, and Korea, for example Cheongpyeong station. Can a few people please help to find abd add reliable sources? Ping me. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Simple query: [8]. 1675 all told. France isn't so bad, only 42. 568 in Japan, 263 in China, and 212 in South Korea. I don't have books covering those countries. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: This is the third time in a month that you have posted this same topic at this noticeboard. I don't think posting it multiple times is helpful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I won't anymore. I was just trying to be helpful. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to be helpful, improve articles yourself instead of demanding others do it for you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

One thing that would be helpful is an automated list of such stubs, similar to User:Certes/Reports/Ambiguous rail links. Mackensen (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

At a minimum they should all be tagged as unsourced articles anyway… so a combination of that automated category and the rail categories would ensure they’re all picked up. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. Your PetScan query was helpful for me to narrow down to my knowledge area - I was able to reduce the US number nearly in half. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've set up the report: User:Mackensen/Reports/All unsourced station articles. This should refresh daily. I couldn't think of a perfect way to identify country using this method, so I populated the stub category, where it exists. @Bearian: don't know if you've implemented reports like these before and have suggestions for improvements. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

This list looks fantastic! Many thanks! Bearian (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm using Petscan to identify untagged unreferenced articles, starting with Italy, so the report will have a spike tomorrow. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

A merge has been proposed on Talk:Types of trams to consolidate three new articles:

• Short-articulated tram
• Two-rooms-and-a-bath car
• Tram with suspended articulation

Into the existing article:

• Types of trams

See and contribute to the discussion here: Talk:Types of trams#Merge proposal

- Qpwoeizmxnr (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of US steam locomotive articles, such as USATC S200 Class that have the text "inside" or "outside" appended to the cylinder count parameter in the infobox. It would seem to myself that this practice appears to go against the intended use of this parameter, and isn't in keeping with the majority of steam locomotive articles. However, there appears to be disagreement on this point, so what does the WikiProject think - should the position of the cylinders on a steam locomotive be included in the cylinder count parameter? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Andy Dingley and @174.224.160.101 Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Locomotives_task_force#Is_the_position_of_steam_loco_cylinders,_inside_/_outside,_important_and_worth_inclusion_in_the_infobox?

So where was this decision made to remove it? Any discussion? If the decision was made that this ought to be enforced by edit-warring, that must have been a pretty big discussion!

What is your point here? That the information is unimportant and shouldn't be included? Or that it should be handled otherwise in the infobox? Or just that it doesn't matter to US locos because they only had outside cylinders (which is, BTW, not true). Nor are the USATC classes 'US locos' in such a strong sense. Their whole function was to be shipped worldwide, and to countries where inside cylinders were just as common. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's please not go straight down the route of assuming bad faith... we're on Wikipedia and we assume good faith.

This started as one addition of the cylinder position to an article, which I reverted. I had not seen this used anywhere else (either because it's not a common usage or because I simply hadn't seen it on articles where it is used), so reverted it with a note to the editor. I left it at that, but it would appear that the IP took that as an impetus to remove it from every article, articles which I was unaware had that usage (see last sentence). You don't need a discussion for every edit - but you do need a discussion if there's disagreement or a dispute... it appears that one revert has raised a disagreement, which is why I'm here (please do take note @174.224.160.101 - we discuss, we don't edit war.) to find out what we should be doing. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

So where was this decision made? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Not every minor thing needs a formal decision - This was a classic case of WP:BRD, just with an extra step. Someone made an edit, they were reverted, and now we're discussing it. The extra step was the other person seemed to take that one revert as gospel and went on an editing spree. The point is, we're discussing it now... so let's focus on building that consensus, whatever it may turn out to be. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

"Not necessary. No other article has this." I presume. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

And that was my belief at the time, having not noticed that usage elsewhere in the WikiProject before I saw the diff. It's not against policy to make one revert... when I found you disagreeing with the decision, that's when I came here. What more would you like me to do? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't think we should have the cylinder position in the count parameter... For no other reason than consistency across the project, as it seems to be sparingly used. However, if we think it should be included in certain circumstances, then perhaps the best way to do it is by creating an additional parameter in Template:Infobox Locomotive? I suggest that so that the format can be standardised - one parameter for the count (which allows you to put code in the count parameter to switch between numerals and words as required - again for standardisation), and a parameter immediately below for the positioning of the cylinders. When the template is displayed, it can still combine the two paramters, for example into "cylinder count: 2, outside" - but having separate parameters allows more flexibility and means the template can be programmed to standardise the display of said information. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Or we could just continue using it as it has widely been used already, as free-text in the infobox. Which works and covers all the eventualities. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I just did a random flick through various articles - these were the first four steam locomotive articles I opened (just random ones I plucked out my head) - LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3, LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0, LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T and Caledonian Railway 812 and 652 Classes. I'm always happy to admit where I went wrong - it would appear only the first of these doesn't have the position, so you are right in it being widely used - I just hadn't clocked it before :-) . What I did notice however is that the format does vary ever so slightly between them - some of them are numerals, and some are text. That's the main reason I suggested we make the edit to the infobox template... it would promote uniformity because the template can automatically convert between numerals and text for the cylinder count, and append the location parameter if it's used.

The one thing we absolutely are missing though is consensus (and inclusion in the project MOS) when the position should be used - for example... why does the A1/A3 article not have it included, but others do? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You would have to ask particular article editors as to why they set articles up how they did. But for 3 cylinder locos like the A1/A3 [9] or Jubilees [10], three cylinders are all going to end up as two outside and one in the middle. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Right… but the point of a WikiProject level discussion is to see if there’s cause to agree general style guidelines on stuff like this. It may be that the consensus is that no style guide for this is needed, but I would argue that it’s worth deciding on a standardised approach for consistency. We’ll see what other editors come back with. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that really needs a style guide. It's not a complex issue, style guides are frequently more trouble than benefit. All I really see is that there's a need to state where they are, if the article author thinks it needs to be stated. That works just fine as "Two, outside" or what have you. There will also be oddities like Paget or a Vauclain compound where trying to be too restrictive and proscriptive really will just get in the way. Most compounds would benefit from something here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

For a loco with three cylinders, they will always be two outside and one inside, so the position information is redundant. But for locos with an even number of cylinders, it's not obvious. In countries with a generous loading gauge, outside cylinders are commonplace; but the UK, being the first, has a much more restrictive loading gauge, limiting the size of outside cylinders. In the UK, two-cyl locos have been either inside or outside ever since Stephenson's Planet of 1830. Some engineers favoured outside cylinders; some favoured inside; some used both layouts according to the circumstances. There are pros and cons on both sides. Most British books listing locomotive data - cylinder sizes, wheel diameters and so forth - will include the cylinder positions as a matter of course. I don't think that omitting it is at all helpful.

I stated "an even number of cylinders" - as regards four cylinders, in the UK they are virtually always two inside and two outside. But in some countries, they might all be outside, one pair being far forward, the other pair being set back somewhat. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The article Baiguo railway station (Hubei) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 13 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No reliable sources on Google. No hits on Google News. Might have been built, or might not.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Number 10 (Southern 6910) is a Mikado built in May of 1920 by Baldwin for the Kentucky and Tennessee. Along with number 7 and number 11 (and later number 4501, which was their number 12), the locomotive hauled coal drags from Stearns. After going to the TVRM in 1965, the engine ran an excursion, but faced HUGE problems during the trip and was retired right after. She now sits at the back of the shed in pieces. Number 12 has its own article via. number 4501, which is what the whole world knows 4501 as, just 4501. Number 10, even though it ran only 1 excursion and is obscure as heck, should we at least give it’s own article or at least do something with the thing? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

As at User talk:Andy Dingley#SOU 6910., I'm just not seeing this as a great topic for an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Why though? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a whole essay on my talk page. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

And then you say we should refer it as a sister of 4501? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't see any route to a stand-alone article on No 10. I can't see enough content to write an article that would be engaging and worth reading, thus worth writing. You would also see pushback from hard-line GNG enforcers.

I could see a section being added to 4501, describing its sister loco in service with it. I'm also assuming here that the two locos are identical (?) or at least very close in their technical designs. If they're different, that itself might be a point worth making - did Baldwin evolve the design in any interesting way between the two of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Just look at 4501. It looks nothing like 10 despite being a Mikado. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, so in what way is it different? I've not got much to go on, other than that shed photo and this one. You can always try writing a draft at User:199.192.122.199/sandbox

4501 is one of these: Baldwin Class 12-48 ¼ E What's number 10? Is there anything useful at somewhere like the American Engineer and Railroad Journal [11] ? Lots of good reading on the Archive site. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

A class of 2-12-2 tank engines from Indonesia built between 1912 and 1928. Should we give the class their own article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

If sources for the locomotive exist, you are more than welcome to start a draft about it. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Excellent idea! id:Lokomotif F10 and Media related to Indonesian SS 801-828 (F10) class at Wikimedia Commons might give you a start. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The June 2025 issue of Trains contains an article (online link) that substantially duplicates the history section of Palmetto (train).^[1] I've added the {{backwards copy}} template to Talk:Palmetto (train). I'm not sure what other action to take. So far as I know there is no particular procedure for dealing with these situations. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

As a contributor and a subscriber, I've written to the editor. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

As a longtime subscriber myself I'm extremely disappointed to see this. Hopefully they take the proper steps to ensure this does not happen again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Quite a few sentences are lifted directly from the article - see earwig report Of course, Wikipedia articles can be used in exactly this way as long as attribution is given - which is not the case here (at least with the online version). 10mmsocket (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Nor in the print version. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's worth looking to see if there are any other articles in that publication/by that author that also copy Wikipedia articles. If so then they need to be marked too lest they get incorrectly flagged as copyright violations. Also worth making sure we don't cite them as a source anywhere to avoid WP:CIRCULAR problems. 14:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is the writer's only byline with Trains. He's certainly not a regular contributor. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

First *and* last I'm guessing... 10mmsocket (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Does Trains now use LLM generated content? The summary screams AI generated to me. Jumpytoo Talk 17:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

gptzero says human 10mmsocket (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

GPTZero should not be relied on for anything. It's pseudoscience at best and frequently is wrong. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No, SPUI and I wrote most of what was lifted between 2005-2011. The history section hasn't changed much since then. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I know it's a very specific (and probably unsuccessful) request, but...does anyone have access to the 14 November 1958 issue of Railway Gazette? The Fruit Flyer article discusses a specific Australian freight train operating on a line with a supposed speed limit of 110 km/hr, which seems a bit unlikely because Metrication in Australia didn't really start until the 1960s, and 110 km translates to about 68.3 mph, not to a number likely to be used in miles. I'm just doubtful that the Railway Gazette would have specified a metric speed limit in the citation for this phrase, since it's published in the UK and was covering a non-metric country. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Archive.org is good on these railway trade journals: https://archive.org/details/sim_railway-gazette-international_1958-11-14_109_20/page/592/mode/2up?view=theater

70 mph, BTW. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It says "70 m.p.h.", and I think that this is a loss of precision during conversion/rounding: to the same decimal precision (one zero before the d.p.), 70 mph does indeed convert to 110 km/h, since it would be implying false precision to write 112.654 km/h. But 113 km/h might itself be overprecise. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve used order=flip to show the metric unit first, while maintaining the sourced figure in the cvt template. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I've unflipped it, since "the line speed limit of 110 km/70 mi" means "the speed limit of 110 km (which translates to 70 mi)", which is wrong because the speed limit was expressed in miles, not kilometres. And since this is not a measurement but an exact specification, we could say 70.000000 miles and get 112.65408 kilometres (which follows from the definition of an inch being 2.54 centimetres) and we'd be all right from a significant figures perspective, although of course the extra digits wouldn't be very helpful for such a large number. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello
I’ve been looking at articles on Czech stations; we have articles on a couple of dozen of them (here). About 20 follow your naming convention ('station name + railway station', in english), while half-a-dozen are now at 'station name + main railway station', in Czech (ie. Foo hlavni nadrazi). So, what would be the project’s thinking on this? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This has come up occasionally; see Talk:Praha hlavní nádraží#Requested Move:Praha hlavní nádraží → Prague main railway station. There's a related norm to not translate "Hauptbahnhof". I think the status quo is probably fine. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Thanks for replying (apologies for not responding sooner): it's actually the the status quo that's a bit of an issue, as most of the pages with Czech titles had English ones up to a couple of months ago.

But I was hoping to get a handle on your naming conventions: Your standard seems to be "(Station name) + railway station" (in English) pretty much across the board, which looks like a default position, while your naming convention for France has "Some stations are known by established common names. These are: Gare d'Austerlitz, etc.. Other station articles should be titled "xxxx station""; the one for Germany has "'Hauptbahnhof' is usually translated as 'central station' because this is the nearest English equivalent; but 'main station' is also used", though that seems to be widely ignored; and the one for Poland has "common name of the station should be used, followed by the appropriate suffix ( x railway station)", but has exceptions for terms like Glowny (Main) miasto (town), polodniowy (south) etc.

I checked the Prague station RM but that looks open to interpretation; for one thing there seemed to be support for Prague Hlavni railway station, which seems neither fish nor fowl.

How do these guidelines relate to the Czech situation, if at all? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The German document does not describe current practice; I'll update it. I think the most honest answer is that we have comparatively few articles on Czech stations so it hasn't come up yet. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

PS: I remember a discussion on this question a while ago (here), which you contributed to; I’ve taken the liberty of inviting comments from the other participants to see what they think now... Moonraker12 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The above image is categorised as "Unidentified railway stations in England" and described as "London and South Western Railway 420. LSWR 415-class built by Beyer, Peacock and Co. (2173 of September 1882). Renumbered 0420 in October 1904, withdrawn November 1921.". Can we ID the station? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This is very much a wild guess, but could it be Southampton Terminus? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so, the turntable is wrong. It does fit with Waterloo though, the turntable being adjacent to Griffin Street. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Just an observation, but the description page at Commons says the picture is from the Bulgarian State Archives, so, somewhere there, maybe? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

What would a LSWR loco be doing in Bulgaria? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The loco is definitely an Adams radial tank, such as you might see at Waterloo all day every day between 1883 and 1903. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Coaching stock in the background is clearly labelled "THIRD" in English. Taking into account the ridge and furrow roof glimpsed in the distance, I would go with Waterloo as well.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

This article needs clarification. The railway network in Syria is presented as a single system, which seems unlikely. It is more probable that there are several separate railways, but the article does not specify which ones exist or where they start and end.

It mentions the Hejaz Railway, which, however, has not been in operation for a century. There is also no map or visual aid to help understand the layout of the lines.

Although much of the infrastructure was destroyed during the civil war, the railways could be rebuilt in the coming years. At the very least, the article could provide an overview of the railway system as it existed before the war, because in its current form, it is very confusing. –yeagvr · ✉ 09:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Chicago has a strong in/out commuter rail system. It is changing, probably drastically. Metra (suburban rail) and Pace (suburban buses) are possibly taking a 40% hit in service to try to keep the CTA (city bus and rapid transit) afloat. And they were already trying to understand post-COVID service. Just a heads-up, big changes probably happening. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident#Naming the train engineer as to whether or not the train driver involved in the incident should be named. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I've raised this on the template's talk page, but I don't know whether that ls monitored, so I'm dupiicating it here.

{{Transilien website}} generates a URL of the form https://www.transilien.com:443/fr/gare/station-name-station-id

I don't know where the port 443 is coming from - I don't see in the template code. It's a problem because clicking on the generated link causes a HTTP 400 Bad Request error. The same URL without the :443 works fine. An example article is Le Chénay-Gagny station, but all other French station articles I've tried that use this template have the same problem. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it's not a problem with the template; the Transilien site itself is adding the :443 as part of a flawed redirection from the old-style URL (https://www.transilien.com/fr/gare/8711352) to the new-style URL (https://www.transilien.com/fr/gare/le-chenay-gagny-8711352). Mackensen (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris I've applied a fix that ought to work, but each page should be checked. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried a few and they're all looking good now. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:St Ives Bay Line#Requested move 30 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! I am looking for train-related articles to write about. Are there any train stuff that need specific articles? Ex. Locomotives, Stations, Companies, etc. Thanks! Wikiman2230 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiman2230: From Cleveland, there's a few stations along the LS&MS mainline I need help gathering information and sources on, especially Dunkirk NY, Port Clinton OH, and La Porte IN. There are also stations on the PRR Cleveland-Pittsburgh line as well I need help with finding info as well, Federal Street station in particular. Thanks. Cards84664 20:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Which stations are you talking about? Could you give the names? Wikiman2230 (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiman2230: As I said above, Dunkirk NY, Port Clinton OH, and La Porte IN, all former New York Central / Penn Central stations. Also Federal Street station in Pittsburgh. Cards84664 03:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Another good option is to add to articles that could be expanded or need important information, like references. The stub and start articles are a good start and you can pick whatever topic you are interested. Check out the "articles for expansion" and "articles with missing information" on the project to-do page.Happy writing! Pencilsforall (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty Thanks! I’ll check it out! Idk887621 (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northampton loop#Requested move 31 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hounslow Loop line#Requested move 31 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hertford Loop line#Requested move 31 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Recently I've seen a concept come up called "Discontinuous electrification" where only some parts of a railway line are electrified, with the rest of the line reliant on alternative methods for running, mainly diesel or battery. Would this warrant a new article or just a mention in say Railway electrification? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 19:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

My inclination is to write about it there, and if it gets long enough split into a new article. Using battery-electric to bridge gaps is somewhat new, but electrification started with small sections (like tunnels or major inclines) and only later turned into full mainline application. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

An early use of bettery-electric traction to bridge gaps in electrification is the British Rail Class 419 with 10 examples built from 1959-1961, 8 of which are still extant, and with 4 of those 8 in preservation. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 06:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

When in doubt, start with a section. It can always be split out later if warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, the whole "Comparisons" section at Railway electrification is chock-full of original research and personal opinions/analysis. Personally I'd remove the whole section and start again with something minimal (if at all). As it stands it adds very little to the article. Perhaps as a project we can focus on that as well as adding something about discontinuous electrification. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Manchester Metrolink has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I've raised an arcane sourcing question at Talk:Buffalo and Niagara Falls Railroad#Buffalo and Black Rock Railroad having to do with railroads in the Buffalo, New York, area in the 1830s-1840s. Eyes appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I was recently looking for sources for some unsourced claims about the P32AC-DM locomotive on its article section. I ended up citing two pages from Rapido Trains (a model railroad manufacturer that makes a P32AC-DM model) - a general information page about the P32 [12], and an ordering page for their locomotive model that has two paragraphs describing the locomotive [13].

Are these generally acceptable as reliable sources? WP:VENDOR only seems to suggest commercial sources should be replaced with non-commercial sources when possible (without explicitly banning them as sources); the example given there (concerning books and music to verify page counts and running times) doesn't exactly fit in this scenario. WP:SPONSORED also doesn't fit cleanly here either (on one hand, Rapido makes money selling models of this locomotive, but on the other hand they have no incentive to misrepresent facts about the locomotive, and there doesn't seem to be a conflict-of-interest in this situation). I would also figure Rapido Trains presumably gained a substantial amount of knowledge about a locomotive from the process of researching and designing their model locomotive.

Any thoughts here? 4300streetcar (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not keen. Although I know little of Rapido's product range, and even less about their product information, I am wary of all model railway manufacturer's catalogues. This stems from the 1980s when I spotted several glaring errors in the Lima catalogues of that period; these (together with some other issues) determined me never to buy Lima rolling stock. Hornby Railways catalogues show that they have done some research, but editorial inaccuracies occasionally creep in - inevitable when the amount of page space is limited. One example that I recall was that for several years (in the 1980s and possibly 1990s), the Hornby catalogues showed the LNER Class J83 as having been designed by "N. B. Holmes" - they had taken two separate pieces of information, the North British Railway (or N.B.R.) and Matthew Holmes, and crunched them together. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I've recently been going through the backlog at Category:Myanmar articles missing geocoordinate data. Aside from a few places I've not been able to conclusively locate, most of the remaining articles (~15 of them) are about trainlines in Myanmar. I'd thought I'd leave them to someone who could cover the topic better than I can.

Just letting you guys know in case someone is looking for something to work on. Giuliotf (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Go to WikiData and see if you can find any of the rail lines and link them if not already. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 22:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151#Requested move 3 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Quirino Avenue station#Requested move 1 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sunshine railway station, Melbourne#Requested move 25 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this with no notifications to WikiProjects. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_27#Template:Infobox London station. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Metrorail (Miami-Dade County) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Circular line (Taipei Metropolitan Area)#Requested move 23 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 14:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

St. Marys, West Virginia tells us:

Train tracks run down the middle of 2nd Street in St. Marys, and freight trains running through the middle of downtown St. Marys are a common sight. It is one of the few remaining towns in the United States where freight trains actually share city streets with automotive traffic.

It would be good if we could source a modern-day photo of this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

None from St Mary's but I'm pretty sure I have some of the same setup for trains in Fort Collins, Colorado. I'll take a look. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello

File:Trains in Napoli Centrale-Garibaldi 18 55 44 221000.jpeg

Can anyone help me identify which class of Italian train this is, other than being an InterCity? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 19:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Given that the placard on front says E 403 (a bit small, maybe you missed it), I'm inclined to believe it is a locomotive of the class FS Class E.403. The file you've linked seems to be in the respective commons category as well. Hope this is what you were searching for :) YuniToumei (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to say thank you. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries, you're welcome! YuniToumei (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:West Coast Trains Limited#Requested move 15 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Should Template:Infobox rail line be changed from label31 = Commenced to label31 = Work begun? This would be less ambiguous, as its not clear to readers what exactly "Commenced" means. It could be interpreted to mean when the line opened. This change would put this infobox in line with Template:Infobox tunnel, which uses "Work begun". Steelkamp (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems clearer to me. I support such a change. oknazevad (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Before making such a change, check how it is used in practice - if it's being used to mean "service opened" then the change will introduce inaccuracies. Thryduulf (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If there are articles using the infobox incorrectly, shouldn't they be fixed, rather that be used as a reason to prevent change? There's already a different parameter that should be used for the date a line opened. Steelkamp (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Irish Traction Group has been nominated for deletion, with the rationale that the nominator cannot find any on-line sources. As the ITG is the main group of diesel preservations in Ireland, with a sizeable collection, I'm sure there must have been several significant articles about them in the railway press. Can anyone help locate some sources to prove notability please? — Voice of Clam (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Some editors are just more interested in doing Serious Business whenever dogma lets them, rather than trying to build anything useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yet another example of disrespectful conduct from you, Andy Dingley. I've spent a massive amount of time building, creating, and improving articles, and I am not interested in your veiled attacks. Grow up. It's been 19 years since this article was created, and for the entirety of those 19 years nobody could be bothered with adding any sources that weren't from irishtractiongroup.com. I was 8 years old when this article was created, just to give you a little bit of perspective. Unlike you, I don't create articles with no sourcing beyond the organization's own website and then clutch pearls when that is brought up as a concern 19 years later. You are always quick to deploy the "nobody wants to build anymore, only destroy!" line of attack, but it just. isn't. true. You're too busy edit warring to keep copyvios and adding unsourced text to articles and hoping others source it for you to do much of anything useful, I'm afraid. Direct your efforts towards improving your own conduct before attacking that of others. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

For the record, if I am shown WP:THREE clear examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Five years ago when the project actively started converting {{S-line}} to {{Adjacent stations}} it had 18,335 transclusions. That number is now 1,196 and {{S-line}} has no sub-templates for lines left. Most of those transclusions are from {{S-rail-national}} (1,168). Category:United Kingdom rail succession modules has quite a few UK modules so some of the S-rail-national transclusions might be able to be converted. Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Possible, but difficult. The UK articles still make fairly heavy use of first-generation {{rail line}}. I would be reticent about introducing a third generation. Frankly, they might prefer to drop s-line and return to a full implementation of rail line. I think the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways should be asked their preference. Someone started Module:Adjacent stations/National Rail, which has been implemented for two TOCs and also used as a wrapper for multiple template generations (see Liverpool Street station for an example). Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

I have nominated Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History of the MRT (Singapore)#Requested move 7 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

There are several open merge discussions related to this WikiProject that need attention:

• Beer Heights Light Railway → Pecorama
• DBAG Class 641 and SNCF Class X 73900 → SNCF Class X 73500
• Zagreb Commuter Rail → Transport in Zagreb
• Leandro N. Alem (Buenos Aires Underground) ↔ Correo Central (Buenos Aires Underground)
• Retiro (Line C Buenos Aires Underground) ↔ Retiro (Line E Buenos Aires Underground)
• Constitución (Line E Buenos Aires Underground) → Constitución (Line C Buenos Aires Underground)
• Diagonal Norte (Buenos Aires Underground) ↔ Carlos Pellegrini (Buenos Aires Underground) ↔ 9 de Julio (Buenos Aires Underground)
• Jujuy (Buenos Aires Underground) ↔ Humberto I (Buenos Aires Underground)
• Corrientes (Buenos Aires Underground) ↔ Santa Fe–Carlos Jáuregui (Buenos Aires Underground)
• Nightjet 2.0 → Siemens Vectouro
• Columbus and Greenville Railway (1923–1972) → Columbus and Greenville Railway (1975)

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Te Waihorotiu railway station for good article status. If anyone has a chance, could you please consider reviewing it? Thank you. DDMS123 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: It's currently being reviewed. DDMS123 (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)