I have fully protected the article for a week due to edit warring. Warning: A discussion in a new section on this talk page must occur to establish a consensus for any further edits regarding the disputed content. An editor making another change without such clear consensus is likely to be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I was thinking about deleting the disambiguation page for TPE given that there is only one primary topic and two other topics. After that failed (and which I withdrew), I changed the hatnote to lead directly to the two former TOCs so that readers do not have to go thru a disambig page because its only two former TOCs. They can do so in one click and not two and the hatnote is just a single line. That is my proposal.
The user is new, but has also reverted my edits to Class 755 and Class 360 which I (tried) to make a primary topic redirect to the UK rollingstocks but are both under discussion with 755 about to close. This user also didn't provide an edit summary when reverting my latest changes which should be done as its not vandalism.
Just for the record - I was also involved in the Class 360 discussion... which honestly I disagree with, but haven't really gone anywhere on it. Not relevant here however. Danners430 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(To add from my previous comment), I think reverting should only necessary if its to remove vandalism or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. My edit on changing the hatnote so that it links directly to the two rather than via a dab may be an improvement (it definitely is to me) but definitely doesn't lower the quality so its at least neutral. JuniperChill (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is however worth taking note of WP:BRD - if a bold change is made, there's nothing wrong with reverting it and starting a discussion so that a consensus can be reached. In my opinion, if there's a content dispute, then the status quo should remain until consensus is reached either way Danners430 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read BRD again. That page, and other discussions, point out the obvious, namely that every edit needs justification. Only revert an edit if you have a reason to disagree with it. Do not revert because you think a discussion should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that edits need justification. I am disagreeing with JuniperChill's assertion that reversions should only be for vandalism - there are many other reasons why reversions would be used with good reason. But we're getting away from what this discussion is meant to be about. Danners430 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did say 'or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article'. But as others above states, we should move back to stating about which hatnote to use: either the current one (to dab page) or the proposed one (which links to the two former TOCs directly). JuniperChill (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JuniperChill, you are entitled to make bold edits, but if reverted then the onus is on you to make the case for change. In this case (and the Class 360 and Class 755 redirects as you brought them up) you attempted to make changes to things that had been in place for some years and worked perfectly well. The TransPennine Express (disambiguation) hatnote has been in place on this article for over a year, you launched an AfD and then withdrew it, so please don't restore your version as if the AfD was successful.
But that links to four pages (not including the two erroneous ones(. The Virgin Trains hatnote is far too long but its doable if it only links to two other pages as in this case. Its literally only two other topics. Indeed, take a look at Great Western Railway which has/d a hatnote to the modern TOC, the Great Western Mainline, and the dab page. JuniperChill (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think me and Weshmakui are using VT and GWR as an example regarding dabs. Maybe the Wikiproject should be notified about this since we still havent had a discussion from uninvolved editors JuniperChill (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last comment, there has been an edit made to another page - CrossCountry - to remove most of the DAB hatnote, and replace with a simple "not to be confused by". I've reverted this as I feel it's not an improvement, and is also the reason why I have moved this discussion to this page so that a wider discussion about article DAB hatnotes can be had. Danners430 (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have started an RfC on TPE about the hatnotes issue over there. But since this discussion here is about hatnotes on UK railway pages in general, it comes to plan whether the hatnote at Great Western Railway and CrossCountry is too much. I am fine with keeping the hatnote on the old GWR as it is even though it may be too long and can be shortened. JuniperChill (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I could ask for any thoughts re a Wikidata problem I'd like to try to tidy up.
Currently there are two different Wikidata items (corresponding to two different sets of articles across multiple wikis) that have the label "junction" or "railway junction" in English -- which is a recipe for confusion and mis-allocation. Can anybody suggest a better a label and/or description for one or both of the following, that would make them more distinguishable ?
The two items in question are:
railway junction (Q336764) (currently: "junction" = "place at which two or more rail routes converge or diverge") -- a rail junction, most commonly in the middle of nowhere, where a railway line diverges, the whole track configuration amounting to perhaps no more than two points and a crossing. The article Junction (rail) is linked to this.
railway node (Q24045957) (currently: "railway junction" = "railway structure where multiple railway lines connect") -- according to an explanation given to me on Wikidata Project Chat, at least as used in German and Czech, this is for a significant node on the railway network, eg perhaps somewhere like Reading or Crewe or Doncaster or Dijon, that may include one or even more than one station (eg Prague), freight yards or facilities, etc., with perhaps hundreds of points across the object in all. Not currently linked to any article here.
If anyone can suggest any ideas for better names and/or descriptions that would do more to distinguish these two very different concepts, that would be really helpful. Thanks! -- Jheald (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that these are actually distinct concepts - the two differ only in the scale of what other things (different concepts like goods facilities) are located nearby. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata has some unusual ideas about scaling and singularity, that aren't necessarily going to be agreed upon here. Nthep (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It seems to be a rather artificial distinction between the abstract (two tracks/routes diverge) and the practical (passengers or goods need to join the right train for their chosen destination). Even if there is a junction 'in the middle of nowhere', there will be a prior station or goods depot where the choice of train for the right destination has to be made. Both are necessary to make a useful junction.
Wikidata's just following the lead of the other language projects; the German Wikipedia (for one) makes this distinction has separate articles. Mackensen(talk)10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also pinged the question to ChatGPT, and it came up with "railway hub" = "significant point in the railway network with multiple connected lines, stations, and facilities, often a major transit hub" for Q24045957, which I am minded to go with. That looks on the face of it a reasonable definition for cs:Železniční_uzel_Praha, and I think gets over the idea of a feature on a larger scale than a principal station.
I do have some sympathy with what User:Thryduulf has said, but I think the starting point has to be User:Mackensen's comment -- if there are wikis that have this concept, then there needs must be a wikidata item for it, the freedom we have is what to name it and how to describe it.
Looking at what wikidata items are currently an instance of Q24045957 (query), there are currently 60 cases, of which 22 are in the UK and 26 are in Canada. Of the UK ones all should probably be instances of Q336764 instead, and that probably goes for most of the rest too.
Per Thryduulf, there is a sliding scale here, and it would pretty subjective to have to assess what would qualify as a "railway hub" and what wouldn't. Fortunately though it's not an assessment that's really going to be needed much (which the fact that very few items have been tagged with this for non English speaking countries is a strong indication of). For most places, it will be entirely satisfactory just to tag them as being a railway station, or if not that then a railway junction. But Q24045957 "railway hub" will be available for features with a wider footprint than just the station or a junction.
On further thought, having looked again at more of those international articles, I've updated the label/description to "railway node" = "significant point in the railway network which may encompass multiple connected lines, stations, and facilities, often a major transit hub" -- since they seem to be mostly maybe not indicating something on the scale of a full "hub". Jheald (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of British Rail and subsequently it is definitely a proper noun. Prior to that I think it varies - some definitely are, others aren't. Articles using names from the same classification system should be consistent, but different classification systems don't have to be. I don't know which set the example article falls into. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Even for BR, these (until recently) just derive from a TOPS classification and any real 'proper name' they had would have been the precursors, like 'Sulzer Type 4'. Modern types are (AFAICS) getting names like Azumas and the 'class 800' label is again incidental. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that the RCTS (as a reputable publisher known for fact-checking and accuracy) would have a consistent house style, but it seems not. Their earlier partworks for locomotives of the GWR, Southern and LNER are consistent across around fifty books - in prose it's lowercased (e.g. LNER class D41); in chapter and section headings it's either title-case (LNER Class D41) or uppercase (LNER CLASS D41). But their later partworks, for the LMS and the BR Standard classes, seem to favour title-case in prose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then if the prose is sentence cased they're not proper nouns, and it's reasonable that the titles (according to their style guide) are pushed into title case. But our local style guide disagrees and doesn't promote capitalisation (even in titles), so ours should stay as sentence case. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a great deal of confusion on here of what exactly is a proper noun. The definition is quite simple: the name of a particular person, place or thing. In this case, D41 refers to one particular class of locomotive and should therefore, in my view, be capitalised for exactly the same reason as we have the Jensen Interceptor and the Morris Marina. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, what is 'the name' here? D41? I think everyone's happy to treat that as a proper noun. But is 'class' just a descriptor wrapped around that? We hear of 'A4 Pacifics' often enough, and in that context I'd be happy to capitalise Pacific. But 'class'? Your point might best apply to Thryduulf's example of the BR TOPS classes, as we do regularly refer to 'Class 40s' in that sense (but is that an official name?). But I've never heard a D41 or B1 referred to in the same way.
Secondly, this is Wikipedia. Which is (everywhere else) very against capitalisation. Look at Shem and Dicklyon's edits all across Royal Navy small boat classes, like the Motor Gun Boats (read the Talk:) where sourcing was very clear about the capitalisation, but WP still mashed it flat to motor gunboat.Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't very against capitalisation. A small number of editors who are prepared to impose their point of view by attrition and bludgeoning are. The vast majority of editors don't care enough to resist excessive de-capitalisation (especially when some of the proposals are correct). Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that we need a new article every time a TOC changes hands (especially if GBR becomes a thing). A "history" section would be good enough IMO. I can't think of another sector where this happens when the business remains functionally identical. Black Kite (talk)10:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different (but linked) discussion to the proposed change to TPE. However, you make a very good point that is worthy of separate discussion here in this project. Wanna start something? 10mmsocket (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to make this discussion its own section because its a completely different thing. It was part of the same section as the RfC. If you want a discussion to merge the former TOC articles (such as TPE, Southeastern and ScotRail) to the current one, then go ahead and start a merge discussion here as its controversial. JuniperChill (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there definitely examples of other railroads with similar names but different corporate histories that have separate articles. I would be wary of merging the two given that one was private, and one is government-owned (if I understand this correctly). Mackensen(talk)13:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent has always been for a new article where the brand is retained but the operator changes. The Scotland service has operated under the ScotRail brand since 2008, during which time there have been three operators; First ScotRail, Abellio ScotRail and the incumbent ScotRail. At this stage we don't know if the existing brands will be retained when the existing operators transition from private to government ownership, or whether there will be one umbrella Great British Railways brand. It is a conversation worth having, but probably best to wait and see what happens rather than crystal balling on what might happen. Meinpein (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first ScotRail livery of the mid-1980s Since at least November 1984, see
Fox, Peter (1985). British Rail Pocket Book No. 3: Coaching Stock Pocket Book 1985 Edition (7th ed.). Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. pp. 23, 25, 28, 31, 36, 38, 39, . ISBN0-906579-44-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
The livery was rather like the InterCity livery introduced about the same time, but with a light blue stripe instead of red. IIRC they launched the branding on the Edinburgh-Glasgow (via Falkirk) push-pull service. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone have a read of the South Tynedale Railway article with an eye to potential copyvios? I'm not awake enough to be certain but it feels like it's the sort of bloggy style prose that one would find on the railway's website. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf I had a poke around, doesn't seem to be from their website, or any other I can find. I even trawled through the Wayback Machine, but zilch. I do know what you mean about the feel of it, and I could be completely wrong. Perhaps if it was lifted from a web-source, that webpage has long-since been removed from the www? I do think the article needs work and citations; I did add one cite and tidied a little. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Googled a few random sentences from it, and the only one that got a hit was the first sentence of the "Developments" section. That, and the following few sentences, are taken from this 2012 blog (which admittedly might have been written have been written by the same person). As with so many UK heritage railway articles though, much of it is very out of date and lacking in sources. Mwsmith20 (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently had a couple edits adding a passenger volume section and table to station articles reverted due to the same data already being present in the infobox, I don't really understand this as numerous other articles contain both a dedicated passenger volume table and a section in the infobox (i.e. Falls of Cruachan railway station, Aberdeen railway station). Either this should not be permitted on any UK railway station articles or it should be permitted on all. It should not simply be a random policy on a given page. Lewisgill100 (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No strong feeling t.b.h. However, what I will say is don't use a generic reference name like ":0", which is more commonly used by bots fixing an article. Why not use "orrstats" or something descriptive? In some cases, such as Adlington railway station (Lancashire), your choice of the generic name clashes with existing references on the page. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of duplicating it, personally. I get that a dedicated section can hold more than the infobox's usual five years' of data, but does the article need that much info? LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from TransPennine Express
