| Revision as of 15:19, 27 December 2024 editMurgatroyd49 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users36,445 edits →Short descriptions: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:31, 18 January 2025 edit undoNthep (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators110,917 edits →Engineering diversions: add noteTag: Reply | ||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == EWR 2024-2025 consultation == | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| * There is a ] debate at ] on whether material on a non-statutory consultation should be included. Please contribute towards a consensus, as presumably the principle has wider significance. --] (]) 14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| The new station usage figures from the ORR will be released on Thursday 21st November. ] (]) <small>Time, department skies</small> 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Which sort of DMU is this? == | == Which sort of DMU is this? == | ||
| Line 58: | Line 48: | ||
| :::::The TOCs will have the same names as the trade marks are held by the Department for Transport. Hence why when ], ] and ] were nationalised in the last couple of years, the name and branding was transferred from the private to the government sector operator. ] (]) 23:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | :::::The TOCs will have the same names as the trade marks are held by the Department for Transport. Hence why when ], ] and ] were nationalised in the last couple of years, the name and branding was transferred from the private to the government sector operator. ] (]) 23:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::We have no way of knowing what they names will be yet. It's way to soon for articles and it's way too soon to put them in the Toc Template. ] (]) 06:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ::::::We have no way of knowing what they names will be yet. It's way to soon for articles and it's way too soon to put them in the Toc Template. ] (]) 06:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Go-op, Virting Trains, etc. survived AfD because there is extensive coverage of them in reliable sources (i.e. they meet the ]). The same is not yet true for forthcoming operators of the Essex Thameside, East Anglia and South Western franchises. ] (]) 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| We know exactly what they are called. From the mid-2010s, the DfT specified in franchise contracts what names each TOC was to trade as to avoid the wasteful rebranding that used to occur every time the operating company changes. Hence why ] became Greater Anglia and ] became Great Western Railway when these franchises came up for renewal, but the incumbent operator was successful in retaining. It's why when Northern Trains, Southeastern and TransPennine Express were nationalised, the brands and trademarks all transferred to the DfT OLR TOCs without any compensation having to be paid to the private sector operators. Previously wasn't the case, ] tried unsuccessfully to extract a couple of million out of the DFT for the ] trademark. | |||
| In 2021, the DFT renamed all its operator of last resort shell companies from etc to names closely reflecting the existing names including ones to , and . This was at the same time as , and that are the legal entities through which the current TOCs operate. | |||
| Even if hypothetically these turn out not to be the trading names, not the end of the world. The ] article was established in 2016 as and remained as such until the trading name was announced and the article moved five years later. | |||
| The suggestion that its ] to state that these TOCs are going to commence holds no water, when ] from ] explicitly states they will. The only way I can see that they won't would be if the incumbent operators launched a legal challenge over the DfT actioning break clauses, but there has been no evidence of that. | |||
| Of course they are only stub articles, but as more information becomes available they will expand. Bit like the ] article, not much more in it than the ] article, but it will grow. | |||
| As for not including them in the ], it is perfectly acceptable to include until such time as an ] discussion, concludes that the articles should be deleted or moved to draft space. To date that has not happened. ] (]) 05:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You stating things is not the same as achieving consensus. So far I don't see anybody supporting your assertions. ] (]) 11:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::A little hard to achieve consensus at 5 o'clock in the morning, don't you think? Naleork's contribution seems quite well reasoned, so if the articles are well sourced then I don't see a problem. ] (]) 16:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given that this issue will probably rear its ugly head again as all privately operated TOCs transition to government ownership in the next few years, it has been confirmed that all of the ] managed TOCs will retain their existing train names when they transition. The only possible exception is ] because that operator was given permission to choose its own name after the DfT afforded the same luxury to ] after it threatened to pull its West Coast Partnership bid if it couldn't use its ]. ] (]) 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Short descriptions == | == Short descriptions == | ||
| Line 64: | Line 71: | ||
| : It's policy at the ] project that descriptions don't have to be meaningful or useful, just conforming to 'short' and some seemingly arbitrary styleguide choices. This is not the first time that WP has made a deliberate, carefully-argued decision to make something completely pointless and useless, but nor will it be the last. So they're just best ignored and don't waste time on them. ] (]) 15:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | : It's policy at the ] project that descriptions don't have to be meaningful or useful, just conforming to 'short' and some seemingly arbitrary styleguide choices. This is not the first time that WP has made a deliberate, carefully-argued decision to make something completely pointless and useless, but nor will it be the last. So they're just best ignored and don't waste time on them. ] (]) 15:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::I've never really understood the point of them. ] (]) 15:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ::I've never really understood the point of them. ] (]) 15:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::The point of them is that someone can use it, in combination with the title, to identify which article in a list of ones that match their search term is the one that they want to read. ] (]) 22:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The other value is that they are used by {{tl|Annotated link}} to provide a quick'n'dirty expansion of terse article names in See Also lists that are otherwise only meaningful to the cognoscenti. This encourages visitors to explore further. See ] for the principle. | |||
| ::::Of course the crazy limitation to 40 characters (specified because of a technical limitation of iPhones. (!) See ]) doesn't help. --] (]) 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I never add shortdescs, but do check those added by others. The two main things that I look for are: (i) does it exceed "short" (which I consider subjective, I don't stick rigidly to a max of 40 chars); does it redundantly refer to one or more words in the article title. --] 🦌 (]) 16:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Seaton Delaval == | |||
| ⚫ | Does anyone have an up to date photo of the station? It has been open for 2 weeks now. ] (]) <small>Time, department skies</small> 21:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :You might get a response at WikiProject North East England. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm hoping to get up there when I have a free weekend, but that may not be till the end of March. <span class="nowrap"> — ] (]</span> 16:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Train station articles == | ||
| I'm currently looking at a number of articles about UK train stations and have a few questions. | |||
| * '''Notability''' - It's been suggested that all UK train stations have Notability, due to the very extensive literature on the UK rail network. I've been pointed to this discussion, ], but that didn't appear to reach a conclusion. Is there a community consensus on this point, or does it remain a matter of debate? | |||
| : Following on from this - if the assumption that all UK stations met GNG was accepted, does that apply only to '''current stations''', or to '''all stations''', including those that have been '''closed'''? | |||
| : Following on from that - if the assumption included closed stations, would it cover those that have since been '''demolished''', such that there is little or nothing remaining of the station? | |||
| * '''Sourcing''' | |||
| : - Many of the articles I'm looking at use '''RAILSCOT''' as a source. ] appears to suggest it is suitable as an External link but not as a source. Is that the prevailing view? | |||
| : - Many of the articles also use '''Disused Stations''' as a source. ] and ] would suggest that it is acceptable, although care needs to be taken. Again, is that the prevailing view? | |||
| I appreciate that the Notability issue appears to be an area of contention, and I have absolutely no wish to reignite what could be a lengthy and unproductive debate. But, if possible, I would be very grateful for any advice on the questions above. Thanks and regards. ] (]) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Ignoring the fact that we have '''railway stations''' not '''train stations''' (see ]), I would say that while stations are not inherently notable, it should be possible to establish notability for almost all stations. An example of this is ]. This is a former ], which gained a lot of attention a few years ago through being Misplaced Pages's one-millionth article. Although the quality has slipped a bit in recent years, it shows what can be done with what could otherwise be considered another ] station. I believe that almost all stations have the potential to reach this standard or better - it just takes ]. <span class="nowrap"> — ] (]</span> 09:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Regarding notability, there isn't a consensus that all UK stations are notable because they're UK stations it's just that enough has been written about them that in practice they all are notable, e.g. it's irrelevant whether US presidents are automatically notable - enough has been written about each of them that in practice they are all notable. | |||
| :This is also true of ''most'' disused stations, although there will be probably be exceptions e.g. from stations that existed only in the earliest days or on very minor railways. ] (]) 15:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::For example, the first of the two ], which lasted barely eight months in 1858, and would probably miss out on an article if it were not linked by name to a later station in the same area. <span class="nowrap">] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 20:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed very short-lived stations are generally less likely to be notable, although both modern examples that come immediately to mind are (] and ]). In all cases though we're only talking about notability for a standalone article. Verified existence is enough for inclusion on a relevant list, and a sentence of sourced prose is often enough for a mention on a broader article (although this depends on what exactly we can say and how well it fits with the content of that broader article). ] (]) 07:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' We had an RfC on this only a few months ago - ]. Obviously stations should be subject to GNG, and there might be a few historical short-lived stations that are the exceptions, but as I said at the time, {{tq|This is moot - the level of literature that exists on British railway infrastructure and stations means that there will always be sources easily passing GNG for any station. As an example, my local station has only five trains a day, is used by <10 people a day on average, is pretty much in the middle of nowhere and yet its article has eight good sources, including five books.}} ] 08:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Engineering diversions == | |||
| {{user|Slowmetal17}} is back to their old behaviour, insisting on the inclusion of engineering variations at ] and ], entirely without sourcing. I've left notes on their user talk page. See also ] and ]. Notifying {{u|HJ Mitchell}} and {{u|Mjroots}}. --] 🌹 (]) 16:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would be in favour of engineering diversions getting a passing mention - perhaps something along the lines of “during times of disruption, TOC X also calls at Y and Z” - thoughts? Such a passing mention could be encyclopaedic in my opinion - people may be interested in such events. But I don’t think it needs more than a one-sentence mention, perhaps at the bottom of the routes table. ] (]) 19:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Note, I have just blocked Slowmetal for 31 hours for a personal attack, so they will not be able to participate in this discussion until the block has expired. ] (]) 19:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:31, 18 January 2025
| WikiProject UK Railways | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
 | This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 30 May 2011 |
Which sort of DMU is this?
I've come across this photograph on Commons, and I would like to identify which sort of DMU this is so I can categorise it. G-13114 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Probably a British Rail Class 105 - see also
Media related to British Rail Class 105 at Wikimedia Commons 10mmsocket (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just looking at other articles, British Rail Class 104 and British Rail Class 108 look closer. Not my area of expertise though Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly not a 104 or 108, they have 3 windows across the cab front. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It might be a Class 112? Though I'm not sure how to tell. G-13114 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not easy, they have the same bodyshells, it's the power trains that vary. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It might be a Class 112? Though I'm not sure how to tell. G-13114 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly not a 104 or 108, they have 3 windows across the cab front. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just looking at other articles, British Rail Class 104 and British Rail Class 108 look closer. Not my area of expertise though Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Two digit headcode box, it's a 112. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Or a 113, but you'd need to know numbers to tell that, they're the same bodyshells. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The 105s also had 2 digit headcodes Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Or a 113, but you'd need to know numbers to tell that, they're the same bodyshells. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely a Cravens unit (all Cravens DMUs had that window arrangement, which was not used by any other builder), so we have five potential classes: 105, 106, 112, 113 or 129. 129 may be eliminated as being the wrong coupling code and the wrong part of the country; 113 may also be eliminated as they all had four-character headcode boxes mounted in the roof dome, and two marker lights above the buffers. Class 106 all had four marker lights and no headcode box, as did the earlier Class 105 units. However, the later Class 105 units had a front-end appearance identical to Class 112: two marker lights and a two-character headcode. I don't recall coming across the use of Class 112 on the former Great Central main line, it's most probably a Class 105. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:City Line (Merseytravel)
See Talk:City Line (Merseytravel)#Requested move 18 December 2024. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Too soon / WP:CRYSTALBALL
I am minded to nominate the following for deletion (or blank and redirect) as they have been created way too soon, but wanted to sound out my learned fellows in the project:
10mmsocket (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also noticed these, but was hesitant myself on nomination cause at the time, it had been less than an hour since creation. I am not opposed to someone nominating for AfD either; I would assume the creator of all 3 pages (the same user for all 3, to add) was not aware of the policy and just assumed the new TOCs would have the same name, when even we don't know what they'll be called when the new contracts take effect. Jalen Barks (Woof) 11:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- or indeed IF new contracts are awarded, given the political intent to cease the whole privatisation idea. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a courtesy ping to Naleork. As the user who made these three pages and also added WP:TOOSOON categories to the relevant articles, what are your thoughts on this? Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Every national news agency and industry publication is reporting that the private operators will cease and the government, through DfT Operator, will take over. If we are going to have articles for potential operators, most of which won't get off the ground, Go-op, Virgin Trains, Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway etc, the Virgin one having already survived an AfD, don't see why not for operators that will commence per reliable sources.
- The TOCs will have the same names as the trade marks are held by the Department for Transport. Hence why when Northern Trains, Southeastern and TransPennine Express were nationalised in the last couple of years, the name and branding was transferred from the private to the government sector operator. Naleork (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- We have no way of knowing what they names will be yet. It's way to soon for articles and it's way too soon to put them in the Toc Template. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Go-op, Virting Trains, etc. survived AfD because there is extensive coverage of them in reliable sources (i.e. they meet the WP:GNG). The same is not yet true for forthcoming operators of the Essex Thameside, East Anglia and South Western franchises. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a courtesy ping to Naleork. As the user who made these three pages and also added WP:TOOSOON categories to the relevant articles, what are your thoughts on this? Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- or indeed IF new contracts are awarded, given the political intent to cease the whole privatisation idea. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
We know exactly what they are called. From the mid-2010s, the DfT specified in franchise contracts what names each TOC was to trade as to avoid the wasteful rebranding that used to occur every time the operating company changes. Hence why Abellio Greater Anglia became Greater Anglia and First Great Western became Great Western Railway when these franchises came up for renewal, but the incumbent operator was successful in retaining. It's why when Northern Trains, Southeastern and TransPennine Express were nationalised, the brands and trademarks all transferred to the DfT OLR TOCs without any compensation having to be paid to the private sector operators. Previously wasn't the case, Serco-Abellio tried unsuccessfully to extract a couple of million out of the DFT for the Northern Rail trademark.
In 2021, the DFT renamed all its operator of last resort shell companies from DfT OR1 Limited, DfT OLR2 Limited etc to names closely reflecting the existing names including ones to South Western Railway Limited, GA Trains Limited and C2C Rail Limited. This was at the same time as Northern Trains Limited, SE Trains Limited and Trans Pennine Trains Limited that are the legal entities through which the current TOCs operate.
Even if hypothetically these turn out not to be the trading names, not the end of the world. The Lumo article was established in 2016 as East Coast Trains and remained as such until the trading name was announced and the article moved five years later.
The suggestion that its crystal balling to state that these TOCs are going to commence holds no water, when significant coverage from reliable sources explicitly states they will. The only way I can see that they won't would be if the incumbent operators launched a legal challenge over the DfT actioning break clauses, but there has been no evidence of that.
Of course they are only stub articles, but as more information becomes available they will expand. Bit like the Next United Kingdom general election article, not much more in it than the 2024 United Kingdom general election article, but it will grow.
As for not including them in the TOC template, it is perfectly acceptable to include until such time as an article for deletion discussion, concludes that the articles should be deleted or moved to draft space. To date that has not happened. Naleork (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You stating things is not the same as achieving consensus. So far I don't see anybody supporting your assertions. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- A little hard to achieve consensus at 5 o'clock in the morning, don't you think? Naleork's contribution seems quite well reasoned, so if the articles are well sourced then I don't see a problem. Cnbrb (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that this issue will probably rear its ugly head again as all privately operated TOCs transition to government ownership in the next few years, it has been confirmed that all of the DfT Operator managed TOCs will retain their existing train names when they transition. The only possible exception is Avanti West Coast because that operator was given permission to choose its own name after the DfT afforded the same luxury to Virgin Group after it threatened to pull its West Coast Partnership bid if it couldn't use its Virgin brand. Naleork (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- A little hard to achieve consensus at 5 o'clock in the morning, don't you think? Naleork's contribution seems quite well reasoned, so if the articles are well sourced then I don't see a problem. Cnbrb (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Short descriptions
There’s a discussion at Talk:WD Austerity 2-10-0 regarding what constitutes a useful and an overly simplified short description. I’ll be largely unavailable for a few days off wiki, so any other contributions would be welcome. Danners430 (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's policy at the WP:SHORTDESC project that descriptions don't have to be meaningful or useful, just conforming to 'short' and some seemingly arbitrary styleguide choices. This is not the first time that WP has made a deliberate, carefully-argued decision to make something completely pointless and useless, but nor will it be the last. So they're just best ignored and don't waste time on them. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've never really understood the point of them. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- The point of them is that someone can use it, in combination with the title, to identify which article in a list of ones that match their search term is the one that they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other value is that they are used by {{Annotated link}} to provide a quick'n'dirty expansion of terse article names in See Also lists that are otherwise only meaningful to the cognoscenti. This encourages visitors to explore further. See Guide to information sources for the principle.
- Of course the crazy limitation to 40 characters (specified because of a technical limitation of iPhones. (!) See Misplaced Pages talk:Short description/Archive 9#Length – 40 or 90 characters??) doesn't help. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I never add shortdescs, but do check those added by others. The two main things that I look for are: (i) does it exceed "short" (which I consider subjective, I don't stick rigidly to a max of 40 chars); does it redundantly refer to one or more words in the article title. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The point of them is that someone can use it, in combination with the title, to identify which article in a list of ones that match their search term is the one that they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've never really understood the point of them. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Seaton Delaval
Does anyone have an up to date photo of the station? It has been open for 2 weeks now. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- You might get a response at WikiProject North East England. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm hoping to get up there when I have a free weekend, but that may not be till the end of March. — Voice of Clam (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Train station articles
I'm currently looking at a number of articles about UK train stations and have a few questions.
- Notability - It's been suggested that all UK train stations have Notability, due to the very extensive literature on the UK rail network. I've been pointed to this discussion, Misplaced Pages talk:Notability/Archive 83, but that didn't appear to reach a conclusion. Is there a community consensus on this point, or does it remain a matter of debate?
- Following on from this - if the assumption that all UK stations met GNG was accepted, does that apply only to current stations, or to all stations, including those that have been closed?
- Following on from that - if the assumption included closed stations, would it cover those that have since been demolished, such that there is little or nothing remaining of the station?
- Sourcing
- Railscot - Many of the articles I'm looking at use RAILSCOT as a source. This discussion appears to suggest it is suitable as an External link but not as a source. Is that the prevailing view?
- Disused Stations - Many of the articles also use Disused Stations as a source. This and this would suggest that it is acceptable, although care needs to be taken. Again, is that the prevailing view?
I appreciate that the Notability issue appears to be an area of contention, and I have absolutely no wish to reignite what could be a lengthy and unproductive debate. But, if possible, I would be very grateful for any advice on the questions above. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ignoring the fact that we have railway stations not train stations (see WP:ENGVAR), I would say that while stations are not inherently notable, it should be possible to establish notability for almost all stations. An example of this is Jordanhill railway station. This is a former WP:GA, which gained a lot of attention a few years ago through being Misplaced Pages's one-millionth article. Although the quality has slipped a bit in recent years, it shows what can be done with what could otherwise be considered another run of the mill station. I believe that almost all stations have the potential to reach this standard or better - it just takes time. — Voice of Clam (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding notability, there isn't a consensus that all UK stations are notable because they're UK stations it's just that enough has been written about them that in practice they all are notable, e.g. it's irrelevant whether US presidents are automatically notable - enough has been written about each of them that in practice they are all notable.
- This is also true of most disused stations, although there will be probably be exceptions e.g. from stations that existed only in the earliest days or on very minor railways. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For example, the first of the two Stewarts Lane railway stations, which lasted barely eight months in 1858, and would probably miss out on an article if it were not linked by name to a later station in the same area. -- Verbarson edits 20:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed very short-lived stations are generally less likely to be notable, although both modern examples that come immediately to mind are (Heathrow Junction railway station and Workington North railway station). In all cases though we're only talking about notability for a standalone article. Verified existence is enough for inclusion on a relevant list, and a sentence of sourced prose is often enough for a mention on a broader article (although this depends on what exactly we can say and how well it fits with the content of that broader article). Thryduulf (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- For example, the first of the two Stewarts Lane railway stations, which lasted barely eight months in 1858, and would probably miss out on an article if it were not linked by name to a later station in the same area. -- Verbarson edits 20:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note We had an RfC on this only a few months ago - Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_83#RfC:_Notability_and_British_Rail_stations. Obviously stations should be subject to GNG, and there might be a few historical short-lived stations that are the exceptions, but as I said at the time,
This is moot - the level of literature that exists on British railway infrastructure and stations means that there will always be sources easily passing GNG for any station. As an example, my local station has only five trains a day, is used by <10 people a day on average, is pretty much in the middle of nowhere and yet its article has eight good sources, including five books.
Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Engineering diversions
Slowmetal17 (talk · contribs) is back to their old behaviour, insisting on the inclusion of engineering variations at Seven Sisters station and Brimsdown railway station, entirely without sourcing. I've left notes on their user talk page. See also Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 56#Engineering diversions and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 58#Seven Sisters station. Notifying HJ Mitchell and Mjroots. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would be in favour of engineering diversions getting a passing mention - perhaps something along the lines of “during times of disruption, TOC X also calls at Y and Z” - thoughts? Such a passing mention could be encyclopaedic in my opinion - people may be interested in such events. But I don’t think it needs more than a one-sentence mention, perhaps at the bottom of the routes table. Danners430 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note, I have just blocked Slowmetal for 31 hours for a personal attack, so they will not be able to participate in this discussion until the block has expired. Nthep (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)