Talk:Train/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Train. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Early Comments
Friends, I require some information on the subject, "The various processes involved in making railway-wagons". Could somebody please add a few pages on this matter in wikipedia or direct me to a webpage which provides some information on the same? I shall be really thankful to you. Please reply on this webpage or at raj_softnet@sify.com or rushtomeaakash@yahoo.co.in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.155.27 (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2005 (UTC)
I can tell you first hand that illegals are not always looking for a ride when they board trains illegaly. A few years ago their was a highly publized incedent whear a Union Pacific freight train was boarded by mexican illegals looking to steal murchandise from the cars, and ended up getting into a shoot-out with the FBI before fleeing back across the boarder. Yet the article their only mentions illegal boarding, and makes no references to train theft. Seems a little strange, especailly since train theft is as much a part of U.S. history as the railroad itself. TomStar81 02:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually it is wrong as their are level crossings on third rail electric systems (The trains have current collectors at each end of the train so the current isn't interrupted by the gap in the third rail over the level crossing) I know this because my brother lives next to a level crossing with a third rail electric system. G-Man — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 17 April 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've put that in Level crossing. - Patrick 23:33 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
I've re-written the introduction to include a few links and ideas. I'm not entirely satisfied with it, however. See what you think. Leo Okonski — Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 26 February 2004 (UTC)
I've started a new WikiProject: WikiProject Trains. I'm inviting all Wikipedians who are interested in trains and railways to take a look and decide if they want to get this going. Thanks, —Morven 23:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
stuff removed.
Train incidents in history
- 1963 The Great Train Robbery of 1963 (not related to the films below)
(?) some of these should perhaps go into a list of rail accidents
- List rationalised. Most of the incidents were on the rail accidents pages. I have left the Great Train Robbery, as this was not an accident.ALECTRIC451 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Steam services are no longer run in India except for short tourist trains such as the Fairy Queen run from Delhi to Agra or the Darjeeling Kalimpong tourist train on a narrow gauge train. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.216.162 (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2004 (UTC)
Image of V-51 engine
I was thinking that this picture might be of interest. Just having a true color photo of such an old locomotive must be worth something. The rest of the series (check the image link at Commons) is truly amazing if your're interested. Peter Isotalo 21:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
passenger trains?
Does anyone know when the first passenger trains began in the United States and their routes? I'm trying to find when the first passenger trains etnered Oregon, USA. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.92.254 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
High speed rail in India?
I made a correction to the page - it was stated that India was particularly noted for the use of high-speed rail for passenger transport. India is well known for passenger railways, but those trains are not in the same domain as Japanese Shinkansen or French TGV trains. See the high speed rail page for more clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.9.32.23 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Improvements
What is needed to make an article a featured article? Trainbuff 18:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's a rather simple if time consuming task. First, review Wikipedia:What is a featured article and compare the standards listed there with your candidate article. Usually this will involve expanding the text of the article and finding several more references, preferably several of them in printed materials. If you haven't taken an article through the FA process yet, it's recommended that the candidate article go through Wikipedia:Peer review for further improvement and suggestions. Once the PR objections are taken care of, list it on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and monitor the discussion there for further objections to be addressed. Most articles will still have some suggestions during the candidacy period. If there are enough support votes after a week or so, it will be promoted by the FA coordinator. If an article is not promoted, take some time to work on the objections and suggestions then come back to FAC when they are addressed. Lather, rinse, repeat. Slambo (Speak) 14:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
question
Moved here from the article:
- NOTE: Does anyone know enough to write a section about the train system as it historically operated during its heyday in the U.S.?? (Before the dismantling trend started... when every town seemed to be linked by rail, before the National Highway Defense Act of 1956 provided a means to replace nearly all mass transit with motorized highway alternatives....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 (talk • contribs)
Does anyone know when the train was INVENTED? -K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.115.21 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The train was not "invented" as such, it was more a progression of existing technology. Ordinary wagon that were pulled along the ground by horses were put on/between guide rails in order to provided steering when many were coupled together. I imagine this first happened in a mine, where spoil/ore was being removed by horses pulling wagons within the confines of a tunnel. ALECTRIC451 11:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Famous Train Routes
Please can we move this list to another page and link to it. It has some relevance to this article, but there are enough to warrant a separate page and some text to link to it.ALECTRIC451 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- This section could be merged into Famous trains... Slambo (Speak) 11:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Fictional Trains
Please can we move this list to another page and link to it. It has some relevance to this article, but there are enough to warrant a separate page and some text to link to it.--ALECTRIC451 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about merging the info here with what's already on Rail transport in fiction, then just moving the two See also links from this section into the main article's See also section? Slambo (Speak) 11:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Motive Power
Is it me or is there a large gap between the title "Motive Power" and the beginning of that section. I have looked at it, but my lack of editing knowledge fails me and i can't change it. Mrjingjing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.82.26 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge
Came across a random page Local trains which seemed unnecessary, and probably duplicates info here. Didn't want to simply tag it for deletion if it's someone's project. I'll leave it to you guys to sort out. Gwinva 13:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so, try somethhing like Regional rail instead. Pickle 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to me to be a pointless stub easily mergeable.--Lisa666 10:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
when were they invented?
When were they invented? By whom? 66.68.208.245 21:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- They weren't "invented". It was more of an evolution of technology such as wagons, steam engines and guided rails. The origins can be traced to the mining industry and the need to move wagons of ore/coal/minerals out of the mine to the surface. Canterberry 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above is the complex answer (and the real one!) but a simple one would be Stephenson's Rocket. Pickle 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Towards GA Status
This article has been rated as a 'vital article' in the 2006 CD selection. (See banner at top of page.)
As such, the article should really be pushed towards Good Article (GA) status, at the very least.
EdJogg 14:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi EdJogg! I see at least one reason not to call it a GA: Either it is not edited to fit W3C standards, or there is a real stupid link bug. See discussion section Talk:Train#edit_links_mixed_up. -- Greets JoernMa 00:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
edit links mixed up
.png)
Hi,
I tried to fix some weird layout problem but I didn't find out the real problem.
Somehow, all the edit-links occur in one row in the middle of (and overlaying) one section.
See on the right hand side what I mean.
What can cause this article to appear that screwed? -- Greets, JoernMa 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit: This bug happens with the following browsers:
- Firefox 2.0.0.7 (Linux/KDE, Windows2k and WindowsXP)
- Konqueror 3.5.6 (Linux/KDE)
- Opera 8.54 (Linux/KDE, Windows2k and WindowsXP)
It does not appear in:
- Internet Explorer 6.0 (Windows2k and WindowsXP)
-- JoernMa 00:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Do you see this on any other page? Regardless, your best bet is to ask at the 'Village Pump', since there will be experts available to help you.
- EdJogg 12:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is a known issue with the stylesheet when there are a lot of images that overlap section boundaries; it's not unique to this article or, as far as I can recall, to any particular browser/OS combination. I don't see it mentioned in a quick scan through the FAQ, but I know I've seen it discussed before. There's probably something in bugtraq about it too. Slambo (Speak) 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you investigate this known issue you will discover that there isn't yet a proper solution. I discovered there was an option available under My Preferences->Gadgets->User interface gadgets: editing. Select "Moves edit links next to the section headers" and the problem will go away, although it takes a bit of getting used to!
- EdJogg (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
hand pump trains
Does anyone know what those little manual hand pump 'machines' are called? I've seen them in lots of movies, they are wooden and have two hanles on each side where two people "pump" it to make it move on a railway.--208.100.234.250 (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a handcar. Slambo (Speak) 11:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also see Draisine. Jahoe (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Gallery section
I don't think the gallery section adds much to the article at all, and I'd support removing it. Anyone else? — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 00:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If you do keep the gallery section.
Certainly replace the Class 153 image with a class far more suitable and modern, e.g. a Class 390. There are only 70 units of Class 153 operating in the whole of the UK anyway. 82.108.4.254 (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
UNTRUE!!
A train does not have to be a connection of carriages that moves along a track! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesta178 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Which is exactly what it says in the section 'Types of train', straight after the introduction...
- EdJogg (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that this article is mistitled, and its description of a train is quite untrue. There are several different kinds of train besides a railroad train, which should be the correct title of this article. I have noticed that "railroad train" does not even redirect here. The fact that this article is about railroad trains must be stated directly at the top of the article, preferably in its title.
Other kinds of trains that I can name is nust a few minutes include these:
A. A series of wheeled cargo containers that we call "trailers" in North America, and which are pulled by one truck. These form trains that move on highways. In some states and provinces, the maximum number of trailers allowed in one of these trains is three, and in most of the others, the maximum number is two.
B. A series of tracked cargo vehicles that are made to travel on snow and ice is called a train. These are seen in Antarctica, northern Canada, and in Alaska - and perhaps in Greenland and in Siberia. The most notable long-distance trail for these trains runs from the ocean at the seaport of McMurdo Sound to the Amundsen-Scott Station at the South Pole. The Amundsen-Scott Station was supplied for many decades by airlift, but sometime during the decade of 2000 - 2009, the trail was constructed (requiring the filling in of thousands of crevasses in the icecap) so that these trains could haul in cargo a lot more economically - cargo such as the large amounts of diesel fuel (for generating electricity, for heating, and for melting ice for fresh water), food, and construction. For the past several years, the Amundsen-Scott station has been in the process of being completely rebuilt (to a much more modern & scientific design) during the "summerimes" because the old one (with its geodesic dome) was becoming buried by decades-worth of ice and snow; generally getting worn out; becoming inadequate in its amount of floor space; and worst of all, its foundations were failing. The new station is designed to be jacked up twice in its lifetime, and it has been designed in an aerodynamic shape to force gales underneath it to blow away as much snow as possible. Even so, the usable lifetime of the the new Amundsen-Scott Station is expected to be about 40 years.
C. Any significant Army, Marine Corps, or Air Force unit requires a "supply train" to keep it in action. Much larger than the number of men in the fighting force needed in the "sharp point of spear" in this situation is the number of men and women needed in its supply train that brings up to the front the ammunition, food and drink, fuel, fresh water, extra clothing and footwear, lubricants, toilet paper, medical supplies, spare vehicles and weapons (incl. aircraft), spare parts for repairs, repair shops, tents, portable housing, field kitchens, replacement soldiers, mail, repair & maintenance shops, field hospitals, telecommunications gear, and everything else that you can think of that these military units need.
D. Any significant naval fleet or task force that projects power to the far sides of the oceans requires a large "supply train" of ships to keep it in action. Much larger than the number of sailors and airmen in the fighting force needed in the "sharp point of spear" in this situation is the number of men and women needed in its supply train that brings up to the fleet the fuel, ammunition, food and drink, spare aircraft and spare parts, lubricants, mail, toilet paper, telecommunications gear, medical supplies, spare clothing, spare sailors and airment, paint, hospital ships with doctors and dentists, and everything else that you can think of that these naval units need.
During the War in the Pacific of 1942 - 45, the supply train that was needed to to keep the U.S. Third Fleet and the Fast Carrier Task Force in action in the Western Pacific Ocean grew so large and so important that its commander was promoted to the rank of commodore (United States), which is higher than a naval captain, but lower than a rear admiral (United States). (Commodores only exist in the U.S. Navy during wartime.) Of course, Admiral Chester Nimitz, the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, had a Vice Admiral (United States) working under him who was in charge of logistics, and Nimitz's logistics staff at Pearl Harbor (moved forward to Guam in early 1945) consisted of hundreds of officers and enlisted men, and those directed millions of sailors and Marines who carried out the actual logistics work.
The commodore who was in charge of the fleet's supply train at ses had under his command scores of cargo ships, scores of oilers (oil tankers), dozens of ammuniton ships, dozens of repair ships, several transports for spare sailors and Marines, scores of destroyers and destroyer escorts for anti-submarine warfare and air defense, several hospital ships, and his own group of six to twelve escort carriers for both fighter plane cover and to be available to deliver spare warplanes, pilots, and enlisted aircrewmen up to the fighting carriers of the Fast Carrier Task Force.
In any case, that supply train of ships for the U.S. Navy in the Western Pacific fighting the Japanese grew to be larger than the entire navies of nearly all of the other combatants, and also larger and more powerful than the entire navies of all but a handful of countries have ever been (disregarding the nuclear armament that some of these have): Let me name some of these: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Greece, Holland, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey. I deliberately left out these others because of their large WW I and WW II navies: Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
In any case, there are some very important "trains" besides railroad trains.98.81.15.87 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I had prepared a multi-sentence reply, then noticed train (disambiguation) exists. This is already mentioned in the article hatnote, and hence answers the majority of your comments.
- EdJogg (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
U.S. Under-represented in Images
I believe that there should be more representations of United States railroad operations in the images in this article. Currently, the only one is of a BNSF freight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YamahaFreak (talk • contribs) 02:50 26-Jun-2009
- Neither are there pictures of trains from South America, Africa, Australia, the Middle East or China.
- The pictures chosen should be the best for illustrating the text in question. The range of countries represented here is actually rather good. Since the US is more than well-represented when considering railway-related articles as a whole, I'm not sure that adding more than one extra US photo is justified here, and certainly not just because its a US photo!
- EdJogg (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Bogies!
- (Cue scenes of young (British) school children going "Uerrrr"! and giggling helplessly...)
I know I just did a minor edit in the 'Bogies' section, but does it really belong in the article? We are dealing with trains here, not rolling stock, and it looks out-of-order and out-of-place.
EdJogg (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, the above is a silly statement. A railroad train always consists of rolling stock, and you cannot have a train without rolling stock. On the subject of rolling stock, this includes box cars, flat cars, locomotives, passenger cars, hopper cars, tank cars, cabooses, and any other kind of railroad car that you can think of. Nearly all of these have bogies upon which their wheels and axles are mounted. Some locomotives might not have bogies.98.81.15.87 (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Russian refs
There are about 103 refs on the Russian wiki, but the sites that they link to are in (oh my...) Russian! Should I find English ones, or are those acceptable for transfer
Buggie111 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Foreign-language references should only be used in exceptional cases, for example, describing 'foreign' topics where no English equivalent exists. Good luck searching for English references! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- November, 2019 is Asia month. Paptilian (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Anyone here at Trains speak Russia? Translator needed.Paptilian (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
--Baldwin Works, Built locomotives for Denver and Rio Grande, and Russia. D&RG dot netPaptilian (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
train project
Go to wikapidia then tipe Trains in then press enter
Love Jemma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.138.143 (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Garden trains
Perhaps that garden trains can be mentioned. See http://www.avforums.com/forums/general-chat/486644-where-can-you-buy-kids-ride-train-garden.html , http://www.maxitrak.co.uk/ , http://www.rideonrailways.co.uk/products/index.html 91.182.175.107 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- For a page on this topic, one could turn to Live Steam. NorthCoastReader (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Where Are Trains Manufactured?
Someone might add a paragraph explaining where engines and cars are manufactured (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Runaway trains
Hello! Should a subarticle or a section in the main article be added for runaway trains? It does happen on occasion, and a wikipedia article explaining the hows and whys would be useful in situations like the Lac-Mégantic derailment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Legacy (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- A runaway train article already exists. Jahoe (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Jahoe: Please look at the dates. The thread that you are replying to is from July 2013; the article was not created until January 2014. On that matter, with this edit you replied to a thread from over seven years earlier. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Track gauge
I think a link to the Wikipedia Track gauge article should be added at the end of this article (or someplace else, i.e. in some subarticle, e.g. Bogies), but I would like to know what other contributors think about this. English is not my native language and, as this link was not present here, as I expected, only Google helped me find the correct term (track gauge) after typing "rail track width").
Solar trains
Can following line be added ? (for reference, see the solar train in New South Wales):
Some electric trains are solar powered and thus foreseen with PV panels and batteries, thus not requiring an overhead line or third rail electric system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genetics4good (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Train ambiguation
Train defined by Rail, Dress, Education, Train (disambiguation). Some changes to this article are being considered. Editors interested in cleaning up Category:Rail transport and sub-categories which this article falls under, please respond here, specifically about changes to this article which are being considered for a move to Train (rail transport). Paptilian (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Paptilian (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- This page requires Category:Rail transport, Category:Locomotive (steam), Category:Locomotive, Category:Rail car, Category:Trainset, and surely, others.Paptilian (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Paptilian (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Paptilian: Please file a requested move in order to request a move for this page. I have restored the original page title for now as it may be too drastic for such a popular page, and no one else has had the chance to respond in less than an hour after you opened this section. epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will request the move as you suggest. Paptilian (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Paptilian: Please file a requested move in order to request a move for this page. I have restored the original page title for now as it may be too drastic for such a popular page, and no one else has had the chance to respond in less than an hour after you opened this section. epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Strongest possible oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only the educational/athletic use (which are really the same thing) is anywhere close. The fashion use is so far behind in importance as to be irrelevant. Meanwhile, unilateral moves like this are a terrible idea. Stop and think that maybe this has been discussed before and there is already widespread consensus for this title. Failure to consider that is reason enough to oppose the move. oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose we don't disambiguate like this unless we need to. This is a clear primary topic. Also any move to an article clearly so major should have been discussed first.
- I saw the post here before the move, but couldn't understand a word of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the opposed positions, upon asking several humans what a train is, moving the name to train [rail transport} is sorta ridiculous, e.g. an apple (fruit) a day,... with that, I concur. But now the [[train {disambiguation)]] is in need of cleaning up, I've read the W disam pages, project and essay, and they leave me a bit confused on the redirects and the differences between disambiguation and Wikipedia:Set index articles. Maybe the train (disambiguation) has SIA which could be culled from disam and put into SIA.?Paptilian (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Summary style appears to be what Train article needs. Anyone care to comment?Paptilian (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
You all are bendy tendys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.54.9.83 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
History of trains
There should be a history of trains section in this article in my opinion. I came from the web looking for the history and it wasn't there. Adamilo (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
ENGVAR
I hate dealing with ENGVAR, but in this article we do have a problem. There is a mix of American English (railroad over railway, cars over wagons) and British English terms (specialised over specialized, Dieselisation over Dieselization) throughout, and we need to decide on one or the other and stick with it per MOS. Do we go for American or British English? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I went all the way back to 2001 to see what the first author used, but even then both AMENG (car over wagon) and BRENG (aeroplane over airplane) were both used. I'm at a loss as to what to do here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I believe this is a rare instance where, because of the international scope of the subject, an article should provide both US and UK terminology. My professional railway engineering experience in Australia leads me to think the US terms should be listed first because US technology is now more widely spread throughout the world than UK's. However, there isn't a strict dichotomy, since seemingly American terms can be in British usage, such as "restaurant car" or "sleeping car". As to whether AMENG or BRENG should otherwise apply to the whole article, I don't have any preference. But the article is in need of a thorough copy-edit and resolving this question first would help. – Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 08:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Barring a consensus otherwise, I will begin a rewrite using American English, as that is what I am familiar with. I concur that both UK and US terminology should be mentioned, but for spelling I will be going with AMENG for the time being. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Article rewrite
As this is a high level and very important article, watched by and viewed by many people, I'd like to get some input from other editors on how this article can be improved, with the ultimate goal of becoming a good article. I have some ideas, and I've made a few changes already, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others.
My initial comments are:
- We should have a history section. Only a few paragraphs, just enough to give an overview of the history of trains. There is a dedicated article for a deeper dive.
- I changed the bogies section to a subsection, with the top level header renamed "components". I'm not 100% sold on that really being needed at all, do other editors think we should discuss the components of trains on this article?
- The passenger section is super long, perhaps things like maglev and monorails should get their own section, maybe something like "non-traditional trains"?
- Is there anything significant missing currently that needs to be added? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- One other comment: should we split out Passenger train into its own article, the way that Rail freight transport is? That would be one way to solve the issue with length, much of the content could be merged into a standalone article, leaving just an overview here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TAOT! As a quick comment, some additional thought should probably be put into the imagery for the lead. My initial impulse would be to do a 2x2 collage (General principles here). Ideally, a mix of old and new, freight and passenger, diesel and electric, light and heavy, metro and high-speed, etc. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, I honestly hadn't considered a collage, but I agree that would be an excellent way to deal with imagery for the lead section. That's one of the only sections I have left to work on, the body is nearly completely rewritten with citations. I'll see what I can dig up on commons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- For a metro picture, I know File:Metro de São Paulo, Luz Station, Brazil.jpg is one featured option, and for a high-speed train, there's File:Line scan photo of Shinkansen N700A Series Set G13 in 2017, car 01.png although it's a super long ratio. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- After some struggling while I learned how the template worked, I've created a multiple images template with images for the lead, with a variety of train types from around the world. I think I did a decent job getting an international perspective, but I'm not opposed to people changing images for better ones. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- For a metro picture, I know File:Metro de São Paulo, Luz Station, Brazil.jpg is one featured option, and for a high-speed train, there's File:Line scan photo of Shinkansen N700A Series Set G13 in 2017, car 01.png although it's a super long ratio. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, I honestly hadn't considered a collage, but I agree that would be an excellent way to deal with imagery for the lead section. That's one of the only sections I have left to work on, the body is nearly completely rewritten with citations. I'll see what I can dig up on commons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TAOT! As a quick comment, some additional thought should probably be put into the imagery for the lead. My initial impulse would be to do a 2x2 collage (General principles here). Ideally, a mix of old and new, freight and passenger, diesel and electric, light and heavy, metro and high-speed, etc. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have for the most part concluded the article rewrite, and nominated it for GA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I just did a copy edit of the lead and a brief read through the rest of the article. Here are some thoughts:
- I think there's too much discussion of gauges too high up in the lead. I'd consider trimming it and/or moving it farther down.
- Reduced to just 1 sentence mentioning that trains have gauge. I added a subsection under operations to further expand on the concept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- My understanding is that one of the main reasons governments have been promoting trains since the 1970s is their greater people-moving efficiency and ability to alleviate urban congestion. Mentioning that in the lead along with the environmental aspect might be useful.
- Added to the lead section now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- A mention of rapid transit might be good in the lead, given that that's a significant type of train.
- The map of worldwide railways isn't super useful at small scale, and I'd hesitate to make it bigger, as it belongs more at rail transport. The link to a map is an inappropriate external link and belongs in the EL section if anywhere.
- I've gone ahead and deleted the map. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- For the first sentence, are trains a form of rail transport or vehicles used in rail transport?
- Rewritten per your suggestion on Discord. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- The Types and terminology section may have too many subsections.
- There is only one subsection in types and terminology. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- The passenger car interior photo is of poor technical quality. File:Shenzhen Guangzhou high speed train new rolling stock China (37116926035).jpg, used at rail transport, might be a better option (and it'd be good to have a China photo, given how much that country is a leader in trains), or you might be able to find something better.
- Good suggestion, I swapped the photo. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- A sentence or two could be added to the lead about the circumstances in which freight trains trend to be used and their comparative efficiency (i.e. they're the most efficient form of land transport, but slow and less flexible than trucks).
- Overall, the body appears to do a good job with history, explaining how trains work, and giving an overview of the different types. However, it's lacking in some other areas. Some topics that could warrant more coverage are safety (derailment, collisions, and other safety concerns, rate of deaths per mile traveled and comparison to other transit modes), the cultural impact (relative prestige of train travel compared to other modes, model trains and other forms of rail fandom), an overview of use around the world (popular in Europe and East Asia, less so in the U.S.).
- Sections have been added on safety and cultural impact. I will work on adding an overview of use by region today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I decided that, in the interest of keeping this article at a reasonable length, it would be better to instead include a link to Rail transport by country under the see also section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sections have been added on safety and cultural impact. I will work on adding an overview of use by region today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Very related to the bullet immediately above, even though you're working on this article, not rail transport, it's impossible to avoid considering them together because of how closely related their scopes are. There's some information that I might want to see in this article (e.g. discussion of train stations, how construction of railroads impacts communities, etc.) that is only (maybe) okay to leave out here because its ultimate location should be there. What's your vision for how the two articles should be differentiated? Should there be a {{Broader}} hatnote at the top of this one to assist readers who might be looking for coverage of some of those things?
- There's no perfect answer to this, as the two overlap a great deal. Interestingly enough, this article gets more views than rail transport. A broader hatnote might work, but rail transport is also linked in the very first sentence. Beyond a brief mention, I don't think stations are within this article's scope. I included some brief coverage of the impact of railroads on communities in the cultural impact section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- The pageview disparity isn't too surprising; I tend to find that views accumulate on articles with simpler titles. Regarding {{Broader}}, the idea of hatnotes is to help readers who might arrive at one article but actually be looking for another, and to do so without making them read any of the article itself. I could easily see a reader who wants to learn about some of the content in rail transport ending up here, which is why I'd lean toward including it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- For now, I've added Rail transport to the distinguish hatnote, as I do not want to add a third hatnote on top of the existing two. I'm open to a better solution. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- The pageview disparity isn't too surprising; I tend to find that views accumulate on articles with simpler titles. Regarding {{Broader}}, the idea of hatnotes is to help readers who might arrive at one article but actually be looking for another, and to do so without making them read any of the article itself. I could easily see a reader who wants to learn about some of the content in rail transport ending up here, which is why I'd lean toward including it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- There's no perfect answer to this, as the two overlap a great deal. Interestingly enough, this article gets more views than rail transport. A broader hatnote might work, but rail transport is also linked in the very first sentence. Beyond a brief mention, I don't think stations are within this article's scope. I included some brief coverage of the impact of railroads on communities in the cultural impact section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- The push for trains since the 1970s mentioned in the lead doesn't seem to be in the body.
- Mentioned now in the history section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Entries like armored train shouldn't be in the see also section if they're covered in the body. See also sections tend to bloat, so after you refine it, I'd suggest adding an invisible comment with some strong language, lest it decay over time when someone bringing passenger train toilet to FA in 2025 decides that it absolutely needs to be linked from the see also.
- Taken care of. I will see if I can work more of the see also links into the body tomorrow, when I make a cultural impact section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- If the further reading section is going to exist, it shouldn't have only one entry. Maybe look up a bibliography of train books and see what would be useful here. Related to that, Ultimate Train is used enough that you might want to consider introducing SFNs so that the page numbers aren't clogging up the body text (granted, that's a personal preference thing, so unlikely to cause you trouble unless you're planning to go to FA).
- This is something I will have to look into, assuming the further reading section is kept (I am dubious about the benefit of such sections, personally). I am not a fan of SFNs as I struggle to understand them, but if someone more familiar could assist me I could implement them. The issue I run into is that SFNs don't work particularly well with online sources, which this article has many of. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- To convert, you'd probably retitle the further reading section "Bibliography", moving the Herring ref there (removing the ref tags), and then change the inline refs from e.g.
<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|8}}to{{sfn|Herring|2000|p=8}}. You'd want to do that only for book references, not online sources. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)- I will attempt to implement SFNs for the Herring ref as you have described here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I appear to have successfully converted all the Herring refs to sfn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- I will attempt to implement SFNs for the Herring ref as you have described here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- To convert, you'd probably retitle the further reading section "Bibliography", moving the Herring ref there (removing the ref tags), and then change the inline refs from e.g.
- This is something I will have to look into, assuming the further reading section is kept (I am dubious about the benefit of such sections, personally). I am not a fan of SFNs as I struggle to understand them, but if someone more familiar could assist me I could implement them. The issue I run into is that SFNs don't work particularly well with online sources, which this article has many of. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I hope this helps and gives you some stuff to work on while you're waiting for the GAN to get taken up! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Some of them appear to be legacy issues that I didn't get to clearing up during the rewrite. For example, there was no mention of armored trains before the rewrite, and I did not write any of the further reading section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, I figured an article like this probably has a bunch of legacy stuff to contend with. Best of luck with your work on it—let me know if you have questions/replies for any of my comments, and I look forward to seeing where you manage to take the article! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Some of them appear to be legacy issues that I didn't get to clearing up during the rewrite. For example, there was no mention of armored trains before the rewrite, and I did not write any of the further reading section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I just did a copy edit of the lead and a brief read through the rest of the article. Here are some thoughts:
Good to see someone polishing up a level 4 article. In general the article seems to do a good job of presenting a high level summary style treatment of the topic. There are a few points that need clarification, which I have had a go at where I could. I have not checked references. Good luck with the GA, and let me know if you nominate for FA some time. I was rather surprised at the absence of a navbox, is there a reason? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- The current plan is to nominate for FA in early 2022. Of course, the article must pass GA first. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Toy trains gender
Continuing from the GAN, if we don't want to write particularly boys
when there hasn't been an explicit scientific study on it recently, perhaps we could instead say traditionally boys
. The Sociology of Women book by Sara Delamont looks to me like an excellent high-quality reference. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: I think that is a reasonable way to word that sentence. I'd support it being changed accordingly. I did a fair bit of digging to figure out if any good reliable sources existed on the subject, and the book by Sara Delamont was easily the best reference I found. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds good; edited. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the american english template
Remove- This article is considered of top importance for a global project is a global article and has terms used in mutliple variations of english so having a single english template is a bad idea. My proposal is to remove the template I want to make sure people agree so I put this discussion up for 1 week before i remove the template, I will not remove it if there is a conseus to keep the template. NotOrrio (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Leave it alone. You just can't stop bugging me, can you? I rewrote this entire article from the ground up in November 2021. I sought consensus to set the ENGVAR to American English before doing so, and there were no objections. Nobody has objected other than yourself, including through the GAN process. The article has the American English template, but covers other terminology as well. I don't understand the complaint at all. Rail Transport has ENGVAR set to Oxford English, are you going to object to that as well? Or is it just because I've heavily edited this particular article and you don't like me? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am not bugging you the article Trains is a popular article on the main space I just wanted to the see the article it self nothing to do with you but since you are so pissed about this I am more than happy to withdraw my nominations as I don't care much about a language banner NotOrrio (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh so it's just a freak coincidence that you always show up at articles I've heavily edited and take issue with my editing? I don't buy it. Stop following me around and trying to bother me by disrupting things I've worked on. This is hounding and you can be blocked for it. You can see above there has been previous discussion about ENGVAR, but you ignored that because you just wanted to come in and take issue with the fact that I wrote this in American English. I have been avoiding anything you've been editing, why can't you do the same? It's really not that hard. Go edit your bus drafts or something. Unless you have a genuine interest in improving this article beyond annoying me, stop bothering me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am not bugging you the article Trains is a popular article on the main space I just wanted to the see the article it self nothing to do with you but since you are so pissed about this I am more than happy to withdraw my nominations as I don't care much about a language banner NotOrrio (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The {{Use American English}} template merely ensures that the article uses a consistent variant of English; it does not imply that only American English can be used. The template was added by Trainsandotherthings, who has written much of the content in this article. When he asked about this issue last year, no one specifically objected to the addition of this template. Someone did raise a concern that both US and UK terminology should be used, but this is addressed adequately in the article.In any case, the template should be kept per MOS:RETAIN, which says:
When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.
The topic of trains does not have a strong national tie. Furthermore, I'm not seeing any instances in which the usage of American English creates ambiguity in this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC) - I see no reason for the template to be removed or replaced. Like Epicgenius said, the English variant used has little impact on the article's clarity or ambiguity. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
About image copyright
HI Friends, sorry if my photo edits were indeed taken from YouTube screenshots, To be honest I just want to help, I'm still in the learning stage to become a Wiki admin, forgive me for my wrong actions I didn't mean to put copyright infringement files on This train article, I hope you will understand my actions, I promise this time I will use my own photos.
Greetings from historians128 Historian128 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- So you're admitting User:Sejarawan128 is also your account? You do realize that operating multiple accounts without disclosing the connection is sockpuppetry, and you can be blocked for it? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't suspect me, the reason I have more than one account is not meant to be a sockpupperty, this is a replacement account for my previous account which was in the band until 2024 Sejarawan128 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since this article is written in American English, all instances of "railway" should be changed to "railroad" since that’s the American term. 150.250.5.20 (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. I see no indication that one is British and another American. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)- Because this article is top-level, some use of both terms is needed to maintain a global perspective, despite it being in American English (I'm the one who put the American English template up, by the way). Railway and railroad are both used in American English, though the latter is more common. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- To add onto User:Trainsandotherthings comment, “railway” is not exclusively a British term; most notably, English speaking countries such as Australia and New Zealand also use the term railway to refer to a network of tracks which trains operate on. Accordingly, the article should not be written exclusively using American English terminology. Jotrain G (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but why are you pinging me about a discussion that was concluded a year and a half ago? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Train/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Review in progressMark83 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
 |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Some tidyup required:
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | More or less. Just have a review of a few WP:WTW, e.g. “highly Influential”, “extremely” “highly”
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Reference layout is good. |
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Not sure book urls should point to https://www.worldcat.org/? "URL of an online location where the text of the publication named by title can be found". But more helpful than not (and not commercial) pending confirmation. Mark83 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector Tool - no concerns. Mark83 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
I've now added two more sentences on automatic train stop and positive train control. Do you believe that is enough, or what else do you believe I need to expand upon? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No concerns on too much detail. |
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Is the article too pro-railway as the answer to all our problems? Open question, happy to discuss.
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No concerns. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | No concerns. |
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Happy to pass this. Just a few comments for consideration
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | A good article. A few points above for potential expansion and if FA status was to be considered. But very solid as a result of a lot of hard work. And a lot of constructive engagement and work on this review is much appreciated also. Mark83 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
Mark83 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings: I have to finish 2b. In the interim could you take a look at 1b please? (Should be a quick one, you might be happy that the sources adequately cover the 'Words to Watch'.) And you'll see I added a commment regarding image overuse. There is a (hidden editing) warning that there may be too many images, which is in line with my thoughts. What are your thoughts on this? Mark83 (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think I caught all the WTW, correct me if I'm wrong. I also removed a photo from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have checked since the GA Review started, but you've fixed it an edit I missed. Mark83 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- On the images, I think we could still lose one of the two high speed train pics. But not going to let my preferences get in the way of promotion. Mark83 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Globalize tag
This article is blatantly written from a US POV. Jobs like conductors are defined based on their American definitions. Sections like safety are entirely focused on the US. Long distance trains are defined as those which take days to travel. And on and on. It needs an entire rewrite. Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- If only it was a quality article or something. Then it wouldn't need a rewrite. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- I make no claims the article is perfect, and there are areas it is in need of expansion. But your claims are wildly exaggerated, and this is typical of your pattern of starting disputes on articles and then pursuing a WP:1AM campaign when others disagree, just like at Talk:Monorail and at Talk:California genocide. There are copious examples of trains and related aspects in countries outside of the United States, as there should be. The United States continues to operate the world's largest rail network, so you should not be surprised it is well represented within the article. One of my main sources I used for the article is from a British author. And of course, you come with zero constructive suggestions, just "this article sucks! Rewrite it!" I put a huge effort into rewriting and improving this article to GA status, and seeing you just blindly dismiss it all as terrible is absurd. Are you saying that the GA review was in error? You can clearly see how thorough the reviewer was. This article is highly viewed and watched by many editors, and somehow none of them have expressed any concerns other than yourself. Additionally, that you showed up and dropped a maintenance tag on an actively maintained GA with zero edit summary or talk page discussion until I forced the issue is poor behavior and you should know better. I am willing to collaborate with others on improving the article, but simply saying "it sucks" while failing to provide any actual foundation for article improvement is not helpful. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- To respond to your points:
- "then pursuing a WP:1AM campaign when others disagree, just like at Talk:Monorail and at Talk:California genocide" - On both those articles people have agreed with me, and with Monorail I got the changes I wanted made.
- "The United States continues to operate the world's largest rail network, so you should not be surprised it is well represented within the article." - What exactly do you mean by "representation"? My primary complaints on the POV side are cases where it's not clear that the article isn't speaking globally.
- "One of my main sources I used for the article is from a British author." - That you used a single coffee-table book from the Anglosphere is not a great defense against charges of bias.
- "Are you saying that the GA review was in error?" - Yes.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you think the article is so poor and the GA pass was wrong, WP:GAR is thataway. But I doubt you'll succeed in delisting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- The article did get an entire rewrite two years ago. I don't think we should be rewriting articles every two years, that would be a waste of effort.If the issue is that the article uses predominantly US terminology, then we can just add that other terminology to the article (within reason). If the issue is that the article is primarily US-focused, then it should be sent to WP:GAR. But much of the info in this article is already applicable elsewhere - for example, the safety section may be based on practices in the US, but it would be unwieldy to describe every minor variation used in different countries, which largely also use automatic train stops and positive train control. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- They do not use positive train control in other countries. That is part of my point.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- That is a valid point. Since this is supposed to be the main article for the entire topic of trains, though, I think there should be a balance between being comprehensive and going into too much detail about other systems. For example, the article could mention that the US uses PTC, Europe uses ETCS, and so on, but it does not need to mention every train control system in existence - just mentioning the largest ones would be sufficient. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- They do not use positive train control in other countries. That is part of my point.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
"Examples" list
User:Helper201 has inserted an "examples" list in the beginning of the article that ruins its organization. Helper201 also refuses to abide by WP:BRD so I have left the edit for now as I do not wish to participate in an edit war. The list is, quite frankly, awful. It includes random instances of specific train systems (Shinkansen), niche train types (boat train, dinner train), hypothetical concepts (gravity train, vactrain), a service type (shuttle train), a specific trainset (electric tilt train, a trainset used in Australia), an extremely niche train type (electric-steam locomotive), and so on. It is clearly a bunch of tangentially related links thrown together with little to no thought. It should not be included in the article and I seek consensus to remove it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I removed it. Absolutley terrible in terms of content, organization (or totally lack thereof) and placement. It's just another see also section put in completely the wrong pace. You were right to remove it and it should not have been restored. oknazevad (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, this wasn't placed "in the beginning of the article", it was specifically placed as a subsection of "Types and terminology", as these are "types". As to Oknazevad, it was organised alphabetically and as just stated was placed where it was for good reason. Can we not work to improve this rather than just omitting it entirely. We could split it into subsections for "specific train systems", "niche train types", "hypothetical concepts" and "service types", or work on some other compromise. This section is for train types, yet doesn't include any of the links I added, so I'm sure there's a way in which most if not all of this could be incorporated in a way we can all agree to. Helper201 (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
This section is for train types
I happen to be the primary author of the article (75% of it is my writing, I basically totally restructured the article), so I can elaborate on the intended organization. The types and terminology section was never intended to include a list or to be exhaustive. It was meant to be a basic overview of the topic before diving into greater detail, so the reader has been introduced to some of the basic terms and concepts. The list you added was not suitable for the article, both because it was randomly picked examples with no logic or consistency, and because there is no need for such a list in the first place. I care deeply about this because I spent a week of my life just improving this article. I have stepped back since it was delisted (which I still disagree with, but alas) in hopes that others would work to improve it. What you're proposing is not an improvement. We shouldn't be listing hypothetical concepts and niche train systems. This is a broad level article that should not be going into great detail. I don't know why you have such an attachment to lists, but what you're doing does not have consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)- Trainsandotherthings I understand and respect the time you put into that and know full well what it’s like. I'd ask you to please remember Wikipedia:Ownership of content though. I suggested ways forward in my last comment and I'd be grateful if we could work together on a compromise and a way forward. Please read over my last post again and the ways forward I suggested. Helper201 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with the fact that the contribution you are suggesting is simply not a good idea and you are the only editor supporting it. I invoked my authorship to refute your claim that the section is meant to contain a list of train types; I would know that's not true because I wrote it. There is not a compromise to be had. The list you are proposing is simply not a good contribution to the article and now two editors have removed it. You need to drop the insistence on adding lists to everything. It's markedly inferior to doing actual writing, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I said above - "We could split it into subsections for "specific train systems", "niche train types", "hypothetical concepts" and "service types", or work on some other compromise. This section is for train types, yet doesn't include any of the links I added, so I'm sure there's a way in which most if not all of this could be incorporated in a way we can all agree to." Also, just because you wrote a section doesn't mean you have authority to limit it to what you meant by your initial wording; that falls under ownership.
- It has nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with the fact that the contribution you are suggesting is simply not a good idea and you are the only editor supporting it. I invoked my authorship to refute your claim that the section is meant to contain a list of train types; I would know that's not true because I wrote it. There is not a compromise to be had. The list you are proposing is simply not a good contribution to the article and now two editors have removed it. You need to drop the insistence on adding lists to everything. It's markedly inferior to doing actual writing, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Trainsandotherthings I understand and respect the time you put into that and know full well what it’s like. I'd ask you to please remember Wikipedia:Ownership of content though. I suggested ways forward in my last comment and I'd be grateful if we could work together on a compromise and a way forward. Please read over my last post again and the ways forward I suggested. Helper201 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, this wasn't placed "in the beginning of the article", it was specifically placed as a subsection of "Types and terminology", as these are "types". As to Oknazevad, it was organised alphabetically and as just stated was placed where it was for good reason. Can we not work to improve this rather than just omitting it entirely. We could split it into subsections for "specific train systems", "niche train types", "hypothetical concepts" and "service types", or work on some other compromise. This section is for train types, yet doesn't include any of the links I added, so I'm sure there's a way in which most if not all of this could be incorporated in a way we can all agree to. Helper201 (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we have to use a list. I'm willing to compromise on that. Please try working with me on a route forward. I'm sure there's a way we can incorporate a lot of what I previously listed into sentences and paragraphs or some other format. Please see WP:COMPROMISE. Helper201 (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- You continue to accuse me of ownership. The onus is in fact on you to gain consensus for proposed changes that have been disputed by other editors, and for the record that includes more than just me. The existing layout was the status quo.
- You are missing the point. We should not be discussing niche train types and hypothetical concepts because that would be giving them coverage disproportionate to that given to them in secondary sources (very little). There's a fundamental disconnect here - you seem to think the information is mandatory and there's just a question of implementation, but I am saying some of the subjects you were trying to add should in fact not be discussed in this article. No vactrain has ever been built. They should not be discussed in this article because they do not exist. A gravity train is a hypothetical concept that almost certainly cannot even be built with our current technology. Why should we be giving these concepts undue attention in this article? Just because you happen to have an interest in them?
- The Shinkansen is already linked and discussed in the article as one of the earliest and most important high speed rail systems. There is zero reason to link it elsewhere in the article. Going into detail about passenger train operations with a link to shuttle train is not appropriate here because this is a broad level article giving a general overview of a fairly broad topic. This is also true of boat train and dinner train, which are topics for discussion within passenger train, not here. Maglev is already linked in the article and discussed within. So is electric locomotive, which has a paragraph dedicated to it. Steam locomotives also have a whole section dedicated to them. Electric tilt train is a particular trainset manufactured in one country. It would be akin to inserting a link to Nissan Leaf in the middle of the automobile article with no context.
- Freight trains have a whole section of this article dedicated to them, linking them earlier in the article does not make sense. Battery electric multiple unit is clearly duplicative of electric multiple unit. Electric multiple unit is too specific when there are also diesel multiple units.
- The worst part of this is you are clearly copying the links in the "part of a series on rail transport" template, which are all therefore already in the article. Many of those links are inappropriate as well but that's a separate discussion, and of course you've obstructed any effort to change that template, too.
- To summarize, a good number of the links you keep trying to add are already incorporated into the article, and most of the rest should not be linked here at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you just added them to that template a few days ago to get around having to gain consensus here. Not so fast. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we have to use a list. I'm willing to compromise on that. Please try working with me on a route forward. I'm sure there's a way we can incorporate a lot of what I previously listed into sentences and paragraphs or some other format. Please see WP:COMPROMISE. Helper201 (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2025
| This edit request to Train has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fix template parameters and punctuation.
| − | {{better source needed|This is an article about a single US rail line | + | {{better source needed|reason=This is an article about a single US rail line – surely this concept has been covered by sources with wider scopes?|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{failed verification|No mention of two-axle trucks being "better able to handle curves" in source given|date=October 2023}} | + | {{failed verification|reason=No mention of two-axle trucks being "better able to handle curves" in source given|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{failed verification|Nothing about wheels or friction in the source|date=October 2023}} | + | {{failed verification|reason=Nothing about wheels or friction in the source|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{failed verification|"just like the old days" doesn't cover the info in this sentence|date=October 2023}} | + | {{failed verification|reason="just like the old days" doesn't cover the info in this sentence|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{failed verification|Nothing about braking systems globally or Westinghouse in the source|date=October 2023}} | + | {{failed verification|reason=Nothing about braking systems globally or Westinghouse in the source|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{better source needed|need a better source than a US newspaper article from 33 years ago|date=October 2023}} | + | {{better source needed|reason=need a better source than a US newspaper article from 33 years ago|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{better source needed|need a better source than a local museum's history page about one specific type of control cab|date=October 2023}} | + | {{better source needed|reason=need a better source than a local museum's history page about one specific type of control cab|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{obsolete source|1925 article in a local US newspaper?|date=October 2023}} | + | {{obsolete source|reason=1925 article in a local US newspaper?|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{failed verification span|Monorails represent a small proportion of the train systems in use worldwide. Almost all monorail trains use linear induction motors|Neither source supports these claims. In particular, "In common with other advanced rapid transit systems, some monorails are driven by linear induction motor" != this article's claim that "almost all" use them.|date=October 2023}} | + | {{failed verification span|Monorails represent a small proportion of the train systems in use worldwide. Almost all monorail trains use linear induction motors.|reason=Neither source supports these claims. In particular, "In common with other advanced rapid transit systems, some monorails are driven by linear induction motor" != this article's claim that "almost all" use them.|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{failed verification|Source says "one of the world's first magnetic levitation transport systems", which is not necessarily *the* first|date=October 2023}} | + | {{failed verification|reason=Source says "one of the world's first magnetic levitation transport systems", which is not necessarily *the* first|date=October 2023}} |
| − | {{globalize-inline|This source speaks only to mines in China|date=October 2023}} | + | {{globalize-inline|<!--This source speaks only to mines in -->China|date=October 2023}} |
2A00:807:C7:D7AA:81B2:1E41:E138:84D8 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. I am working on fixing some of the sourcing rather than just fixing the comments Dahawk04 Talk 💬 01:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_WAGR_L_class_LZ3106_and_LZ3103_--_Fremantle,_February_2015.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![File:JR Hokkaido night train express"Hamanasu"Unreserved seat.JPG](http://wiki.nitrosworld.org/wiki/File:JR_Hokkaido_night_train_express"Hamanasu"Unreserved_seat.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Remaining cleanup tags
I'm going to try and resolve as many of the cleanup tags as I can over the summer - after all, they're technically my fault in the first place. I'd appreciate any help other editors can contribute. I have zero interest in taking this to GA again but I do want to resolve the issues that have tags (the ones that aren't overzealous, which a few are). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Does this article need to be made consistent with the one on Steam Locomotives?
Steam locomotive article says, "fully converting to electric and diesel power beginning in the late 1930s." This article says 1920s: " Beginning in the 1920s, and accelerating following World War II, diesel and electric locomotives replaced steam as the means of motive power." Perhaps both articles need at least 2 reliable secondary sources. (Appletonclack (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC))
- They're both wrong. Electric locos are a few decades earlier (The B&O in the mid-1890s) and diesel locos don't appear until the 1930s and the development of the high-speed diesel engine (although many loco engines were only ever medium-speed, the same techniques were involved). There were a handful of 'diesel' locos before this date, but they were using quite different engine designs and that limited their available power. All of the Prussians, Lomonosov's loco and the Beardmore loco for Canada were unworkable dead ends. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- The electric locomotive-hauled (not multiple power car) City and South London Railway opened to the public in 1890 and electric trams by 1881. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- So what? There were several subway systems like that, a few before the B&O and the NYC. But they're neither heavy rail, nor are they conversions of existing systems. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- Despite UK apparently not calling subways heavy rail passenger rail terminology#Heavy rail says London Underground's officially classified as being heavy rail and [in my home continent of North America] heavy rail can also refer to rapid transit, when referring to systems with heavier passenger loadings than light rail systems. And who cares if it's a subway it's still a standard gauge train. Maybe such details as first conversion being mid-1890s but electric new construction was this and high-speed diesel engines appearing 1930s could be in a footnote. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- So what? There were several subway systems like that, a few before the B&O and the NYC. But they're neither heavy rail, nor are they conversions of existing systems. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- The electric locomotive-hauled (not multiple power car) City and South London Railway opened to the public in 1890 and electric trams by 1881. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Is the noun consist pronounced differently than the verb?
I found a suitable use for the noun. I decided to invent a pronunciation for offline use. Thanks for using an ai bot for archival assistance. 2603:3014:C06:3C00:9179:C115:62BA:8E61 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- The timeliness of automated activity is suitable for peer reviews that inspect the quality and timeliness of topics that end with question marks.
2603:3014:C06:3C00:9179:C115:62BA:8E61 (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)