I have fully protected the article for a week due to edit warring. Warning: A discussion in a new section on this talk page must occur to establish a consensus for any further edits regarding the disputed content. An editor making another change without such clear consensus is likely to be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I was thinking about deleting the disambiguation page for TPE given that there is only one primary topic and two other topics. After that failed (and which I withdrew), I changed the hatnote to lead directly to the two former TOCs so that readers do not have to go thru a disambig page because its only two former TOCs. They can do so in one click and not two and the hatnote is just a single line. That is my proposal.
The user is new, but has also reverted my edits to Class 755 and Class 360 which I (tried) to make a primary topic redirect to the UK rollingstocks but are both under discussion with 755 about to close. This user also didn't provide an edit summary when reverting my latest changes which should be done as its not vandalism.
Just for the record - I was also involved in the Class 360 discussion... which honestly I disagree with, but haven't really gone anywhere on it. Not relevant here however. Danners430 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(To add from my previous comment), I think reverting should only necessary if its to remove vandalism or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. My edit on changing the hatnote so that it links directly to the two rather than via a dab may be an improvement (it definitely is to me) but definitely doesn't lower the quality so its at least neutral. JuniperChill (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is however worth taking note of WP:BRD - if a bold change is made, there's nothing wrong with reverting it and starting a discussion so that a consensus can be reached. In my opinion, if there's a content dispute, then the status quo should remain until consensus is reached either way Danners430 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read BRD again. That page, and other discussions, point out the obvious, namely that every edit needs justification. Only revert an edit if you have a reason to disagree with it. Do not revert because you think a discussion should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that edits need justification. I am disagreeing with JuniperChill's assertion that reversions should only be for vandalism - there are many other reasons why reversions would be used with good reason. But we're getting away from what this discussion is meant to be about. Danners430 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did say 'or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article'. But as others above states, we should move back to stating about which hatnote to use: either the current one (to dab page) or the proposed one (which links to the two former TOCs directly). JuniperChill (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JuniperChill, you are entitled to make bold edits, but if reverted then the onus is on you to make the case for change. In this case (and the Class 360 and Class 755 redirects as you brought them up) you attempted to make changes to things that had been in place for some years and worked perfectly well. The TransPennine Express (disambiguation) hatnote has been in place on this article for over a year, you launched an AfD and then withdrew it, so please don't restore your version as if the AfD was successful.
But that links to four pages (not including the two erroneous ones(. The Virgin Trains hatnote is far too long but its doable if it only links to two other pages as in this case. Its literally only two other topics. Indeed, take a look at Great Western Railway which has/d a hatnote to the modern TOC, the Great Western Mainline, and the dab page. JuniperChill (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think me and Weshmakui are using VT and GWR as an example regarding dabs. Maybe the Wikiproject should be notified about this since we still havent had a discussion from uninvolved editors JuniperChill (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last comment, there has been an edit made to another page - CrossCountry - to remove most of the DAB hatnote, and replace with a simple "not to be confused by". I've reverted this as I feel it's not an improvement, and is also the reason why I have moved this discussion to this page so that a wider discussion about article DAB hatnotes can be had. Danners430 (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have started an RfC on TPE about the hatnotes issue over there. But since this discussion here is about hatnotes on UK railway pages in general, it comes to plan whether the hatnote at Great Western Railway and CrossCountry is too much. I am fine with keeping the hatnote on the old GWR as it is even though it may be too long and can be shortened. JuniperChill (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that we need a new article every time a TOC changes hands (especially if GBR becomes a thing). A "history" section would be good enough IMO. I can't think of another sector where this happens when the business remains functionally identical. Black Kite (talk)10:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different (but linked) discussion to the proposed change to TPE. However, you make a very good point that is worthy of separate discussion here in this project. Wanna start something? 10mmsocket (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to make this discussion its own section because its a completely different thing. It was part of the same section as the RfC. If you want a discussion to merge the former TOC articles (such as TPE, Southeastern and ScotRail) to the current one, then go ahead and start a merge discussion here as its controversial. JuniperChill (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there definitely examples of other railroads with similar names but different corporate histories that have separate articles. I would be wary of merging the two given that one was private, and one is government-owned (if I understand this correctly). Mackensen(talk)13:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent has always been for a new article where the brand is retained but the operator changes. The Scotland service has operated under the ScotRail brand since 2008, during which time there have been three operators; First ScotRail, Abellio ScotRail and the incumbent ScotRail. At this stage we don't know if the existing brands will be retained when the existing operators transition from private to government ownership, or whether there will be one umbrella Great British Railways brand. It is a conversation worth having, but probably best to wait and see what happens rather than crystal balling on what might happen. Meinpein (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first ScotRail livery of the mid-1980s Since at least November 1984, see
Fox, Peter (1985). British Rail Pocket Book No. 3: Coaching Stock Pocket Book 1985 Edition (7th ed.). Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. pp. 23, 25, 28, 31, 36, 38, 39, . ISBN0-906579-44-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
The livery was rather like the InterCity livery introduced about the same time, but with a light blue stripe instead of red. IIRC they launched the branding on the Edinburgh-Glasgow (via Falkirk) push-pull service. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone have a read of the South Tynedale Railway article with an eye to potential copyvios? I'm not awake enough to be certain but it feels like it's the sort of bloggy style prose that one would find on the railway's website. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf I had a poke around, doesn't seem to be from their website, or any other I can find. I even trawled through the Wayback Machine, but zilch. I do know what you mean about the feel of it, and I could be completely wrong. Perhaps if it was lifted from a web-source, that webpage has long-since been removed from the www? I do think the article needs work and citations; I did add one cite and tidied a little. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Googled a few random sentences from it, and the only one that got a hit was the first sentence of the "Developments" section. That, and the following few sentences, are taken from this 2012 blog (which admittedly might have been written have been written by the same person). As with so many UK heritage railway articles though, much of it is very out of date and lacking in sources. Mwsmith20 (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently had a couple edits adding a passenger volume section and table to station articles reverted due to the same data already being present in the infobox, I don't really understand this as numerous other articles contain both a dedicated passenger volume table and a section in the infobox (i.e. Falls of Cruachan railway station, Aberdeen railway station). Either this should not be permitted on any UK railway station articles or it should be permitted on all. It should not simply be a random policy on a given page. Lewisgill100 (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No strong feeling t.b.h. However, what I will say is don't use a generic reference name like ":0", which is more commonly used by bots fixing an article. Why not use "orrstats" or something descriptive? In some cases, such as Adlington railway station (Lancashire), your choice of the generic name clashes with existing references on the page. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of duplicating it, personally. I get that a dedicated section can hold more than the infobox's usual five years' of data, but does the article need that much info? LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See British Rail Class 390#Names. I think this is the perfect example of what Wikipedia should not be. It's not a directory, nor a collection of indiscriminate information / trivia. I think this example fails WP:DETAIL. In my opinion we should trim the section right back to just a handful (less than 10) of notable names, i.e. namings that resulted in press coverage rather than just entries in a single (list) reference. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - I think the content has its place when it is sourced. Being selective could be seen as us being subjective. Garuda3 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think that section has far too much detail, much of it transient in nature (as shown by the frequency of renamings). My only hesitation is that in this case, it is well sourced / referenced and is (currently) up to date - albeit with a risk of that not being maintained. There is a vast number of railway articles which have excessive detail which is not sourced and is also hopelessly out of date (e.g. see many heritage railway articles). On that basis, I'm very supportive of reducing unnecessary detail, but this article wouldn't be remotely near any list of worst examples. Mwsmith20 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do this for some steam loco classes, e.g. List of GWR 4900 Class locomotives, but the majority of named steam locos tended to be named when new, or almost-new, and also tended to keep their names until withdrawal. That said, some classes (e.g. LMS Royal Scot Class, nos. 6125-49, and LNER Class A4) did have a disproportionately-high number of renamings.
I have noticed that in modern times (like, from about 1990 on), locomotives and multiple-units were often named with a lot of publicity, particularly in local press, and a few years later the names were quietly dropped, by which time the local interest had also vanished. Names do tend to be a lot more transient than they once were. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is cited, which this appears to be, see no problem. Keeping track of contemporary namings / denamings is easily done with several of the industry magazines having sections in each edition that track. Either include them all or none at all, trying to decide which are notable and which aren't would be impossible. Of more concern are the lists, of which there are many, on railway articles that have existed for years uncited and while perhaps correct at the time of writing, are now horribly out of date. Symondsyat (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from TransPennine Express
