Archives

V · Index Archive 1: Apr – Dec 2006 Archive 2: Jan – Apr 2007 Archive 3: Apr – Jun 2007 Archive 4: May – Jul 2007 Archive 5: Aug – Sep 2007 Archive 6: Sep – Oct 2007 Archive 7: Oct – Nov 2007 Archive 8: Nov 2007 – Jan 2008 Archive 9: Jan – Feb 2008 Archive 10: Feb – May 2008 Archive 11: May – Jun 2008 Archive 12: Jun – Aug 2008 Archive 13: Sep 2008 – Feb 2009 Archive 14: Feb – Nov 2009 Archive 15: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010 Archive 16: Feb – May 2010 Archive 17: May – Oct 2010 Archive 18: Oct 2010 – Jan 2011 Archive 19: Jan – Apr 2011 Archive 20: Apr – Jun 2011 Archive 21: May – Sep 2011 Archive 22: Sep 2011 – Jan 2012 Archive 23: Jan - Apr 2012 Archive 24: Apr 2012 - Feb 2013 Archive 25: Feb - Apr 2013 Archive 26: Apr - Sep 2013 Archive 27: Sep 2013 - Feb 2014 Archive 28: Feb - Jun 2014 Archive 29: Jun - Oct 2014 Archive 30: Oct 2014 - Jan 2015 Archive 31: Jan - May 2015 Archive 32: May - Aug 2015 Archive 33: Jun - Nov 2015 Archive 34: Nov 2015 - Mar 2016 Archive 35: Mar - Jul 2016 Archive 36: Jul - Nov 2016 Archive 37: Nov 2016 - Feb 2017 Archive 38: Feb 2017 (Decaptilising lines discussion) Archive 39: Feb - May 2017 Archive 40: May - Sep 2017 Archive 41: Sep 2017 - May 2018 Archive 42: May - Jul 2018 Archive 43: Jul - Aug 2018 Archive 44: Aug 2018 - Apr 2019 Archive 45: Mar - Aug 2019 Archive 46: Aug 2019 - Feb 2020 Archive 47: Feb - Jul 2020 Archive 48: Jul 2020 - Jan 2021 Archive 49: Jan - Mar 2021 Archive 50: Mar - May 2021 Archive 51: May 2021 - Oct 2021 + LTS discussion Archive 52: Nov 2021 - Mar 2022 Archive 53: Mar - Oct 2022 Archive 54: Oct 2022 - Jan 2023 Archive 55: Jan - Jun 2023 Archive 56: Jun 2023 - Jan 2024 Archive 57: Jan 2024 - Aug 2024 Archive 58: Aug 2024 - Feb 2025 Archive 59: Mar 2025 - Aug 2025 Archive 60: Aug 2025 - Nov 2025 Archive 61: Dec 2025 - Present

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

Moved to Template talk:Sheffield station

05:06, 10 February 2018‎ (UTC)

Cambridge South railway station has been demerged from Transport in Cambridge as construction of the station has been approved and funded. JeanPassepartout (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I do agree the station needs its own article, I disagree it has been approved, with my reasons given on the article talk page. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 23:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should Black Dog Halt railway station include both "halt" and "railway station" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Since this is our convention for those UK stations that retain the 'halt' designation (e.g. Coombe Junction Halt railway station) it would be perverse not to apply it to historic stations as well. ‑ Iridescent 12:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that HM Government are taking over the running of trains from all TOCs. I would suggest that we do not make any changes to station articles etc removing TOCs from those articles. We may need to amend articles relating to current TOCs covering the suspension of their franchise due to the coronavirus outbreak. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the take-over confirmed yet? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a take-over (yet) the franchise agreements have been suspended and the TOCs are effectively on management contracts for the next 6 months. No changes to station articles needed. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franchises suspended to prevent collapse of TOCs. (Sky News). Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the TOCs are still running the services, just under a management contract, BBC News Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's only the financials that are being borne by the Government. The Sky link even says "In case operators choose not to take part in its "Emergency Measures Agreement", the government's Operator of Last Resort will take over the franchise." I wouldn't change any station articles etc. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to combine these articles and improve the content. Do we need two separate articles on this? Guidance please.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean railways in Ely? That's a nice little article, but I can't see anything there that wouldn't fit in the station's article. There are towns whose railway history is worthy of a standalone article if someone wanted to dig up the sources (Swindon, Derby, Crewe, Eastleigh, York, possibly a few others) but a village-sized city in rural Cambridgeshire isn't really one. The content is worth keeping, though; I'd hate to see it lost altogether. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (header corrected) - would not want to lose any material but a thorough tidy up and expansion I think would be worthwhile.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is information included in the Railways in Ely page that wouldn't necessarily fit into the railway station article. The Railways in Ely page is in need of some citations though. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would rather use the "railways in Ely" title but we collectively made a decision that each current station should have its own article. I think that can be extended to take in existing and former goods facilities (see Ipswich railway station), operations etc. There is a "railways in Newmarket" article but that maps the relationship between the various stations in that town and is worth keeping. I cannot see that here.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Newmarket, to be precise. I agree that it has a reason to exist. I am much less convinced by the case for railways in Ely, it is not exactly Clapham Junction, is it? It seems to me that the purpose could be served better with an RDT like template:Railways around Cambridge. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some ten years ago, somebody - possibly Andy F (talk · contribs) - asked me to improve Railways in Ely. I started something at User:Redrose64/Sandbox2 and ... kinda forgot it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I am after some help. In the last few days, various {{sfn}} citations have gone into a deprecated state (over 47,000 articles, some of them about UK railway stations). Most can be sorted by amending the sources and adapting the Wikicite parameter (which I believe is deprecated anyway). The issue is the Butt template (Template:Butt-Stations), which is something I cannot solve. I have tried amending the template at source, but what I have tried does not work and I am loathe to make it worse. Can anyone help? Sample article pages are Bakewell and Balerno. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; it seems to have resolved itself, but the list is still extant Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. Tried purging and refreshing, but ah......! The joy of all things (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably some of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Footnotes&action=history

This stuff's unfixable. It's locked down to a clique, they don't want help, they code like it was 1990 and haven't a clue about testing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it. Thank you. The joy of all things (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several threads on this matter, at (for example) WP:ANI, WP:VPT as well as the talk pages for some of the directly-relevant templates and modules. It seems to have started at Module talk:Footnotes#broken harv link reporting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here have the necessary skills to update the Template:Metrolink RDT, to reflect the recent opening of the Trafford Park Line? I would attempt it, but it's a complicated map now, and I have little idea how to approach it. G-13114 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it go in the next day or so. Nempnet (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoneNempnet (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :) G-13114 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has been adding lists of former station masters to lots of station articles. Like here. I must admit I'm a bit dubious as to whether these lists add anything of encyclopedic value to articles, especially the smaller articles. What do others think? G-13114 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's Andrewrabbott (talk · contribs), and they have been doing it for over two and a half years. The earliest list of theirs that I can find is the one at Inverness railway station, added in August 2017 with this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cant see any encyclopedic value in the list unless they are otherwise noteworthy which is unlikely. MilborneOne (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been directed here after noticing this as an issue on York Station. As with other articles none of the names are linked to articles and for those that have citations they are from old local newspapers, so not really evidence of individual notability. Verifiability is also a concern as many of the names and dates lack citations, some of this could be addressed by copying in citations from related articles (the ones which state previous or subsequent stations) but as the sources require subscription access it would take more effort to verify them first. I have attempted to find sources for some of the names without success possibly as one newspaper article suggests (Yorkshire Post: 19 Jan 1954) station masters couldn't talk to journalists and are therefore often referred to anonymously. The initial lists may have been correct? but it seems as though they are based on original research, and as some of the subsequent additions are questionable and may be the result of joke edits it makes me think the article would be better off without such lists. EdwardUK (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could understand their inclusion if at least some were notable people who had articles, but these are just lists of non-notable employees and is of no encyclopedic value. Is like a list of branch managers at your bank, sure there have been many of them over the years, but are they notable? Basically this is WP:LISTCRUFT. Support their removal. Ligtomet (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it's unlikely that the station master has notability. That's not to say they're always non-notable, but it would be situational - if I saw a claim "David Bowie was stationmaster of Durham from 1978-80" then it's perfectly valid for David Bowie, but I'd be tempted to think that's trivia for Durham unless they did something noteworthy as stationmaster. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a high bar, for having an article. The bar for inclusion of names is much lower; basically just that it be reliably sourced. If all we know about the person is the name, that's still OK. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that increasingly there have been side-on train diagrams plaguing most UK railway company and train articles. Is there really any point in these cluttering images? I notice that they make tables particularly difficult to read, and don't really add anything to the article. I can see the appeal of a single livery-neutral diagram of each type of train, which would make sense on the train's specific page to show the shape and details, but having sometimes ten of these is excessive (with some having multiple versions of the same livery, with different lengths or even different branding).

Given that the diagrams already reside in the train specific category on Commons, is there really much point on replicating them all on the Encylopedia page as well? Thoughts please...Superalbs (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand the benefit of having a diagram in the absence of actual photographs, agree it's a bit of an overkill to have them on articles that are already well illustrated. On some articles, (e.g. classes 319, 377, 455) where every livery carried (including the most minor of changes) or set length is represented, it's getting a bit ridiculous. Some classes have had over 20 liveries, can't see it being of any value to illustrate every one. Then there are others like 373 that are microscopic to the point of being useless.

At the very least, we should at least be applying the same policy as with images, i.e. a finite number that are representative, rather than seeking to include every livery or carriage number combination. My preference would be to do away with these diagrams entirely and leave them on Commons. Ligtomet (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has used these diagrams outside of Wikipedia, I tend to feel that what you want is the driving car and a trailer car, and that with that you can then get whatever use you want out of it. They work for 2-4 car trains, but after that it just gets too small to be useful. Class 170 I saw had one of every length and livery, and that seemed excessive, but I'm unsure quite where to draw the line. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for removing them from the articles but having a specific link to the appropriate Commons categories. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I thought this was our old friend Tony May which was another reason for the reverts, That aside personally I think all diagrams on train articles should remain however those on train company articles should be removed,

The diagrams sort of show a better side view/livery of the train and unless you do it as a panoramic view then it's sort of impossible to do a side photograph of it/them. –Davey2010^Talk 10:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What we should be avoiding is repetition: a Class 165 in Great Western livery looks almost exactly the same as a Class 166 in the same livery - it's only the proportion of opening windows to non-opening that differs. But what is the purpose of these diagrams? If the object is to depict every different livery, then they belong on the articles for the TOCs - where there should be no more than one class for each livery. If the object is to show different formations, that they belong on the articles for the classes - but only one livery for each formation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]