Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page	(WP:TWP)	talk
Portal	(P:Trains)	talk
Project navigation bar		talk
Project participants		talk
Project banner (doc)	{{TWP}}	talk
Project category		talk
Manual of style	(WP:TWP/MOS)	talk
Welcome message		talk
Departments
Assessments	(WP:TWP/A)	talk
Peer review	(WP:TWP/PR)	talk
To do list		talk
Daily new article search	search criteria	talk
Task forces
Article maintenance		talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive		talk
By country series		talk
Categories		talk
Images		talk
Locomotives		talk
Maps		talk
Rail transport in Germany		talk
Monorails		talk
Operations		talk
Passenger trains		talk
Portal		talk
Rail transport modelling		talk
Timelines		talk

200th anniversary of passenger rail

Wikivoyage notes at voy:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#200 years of railway travel that the 200th anniversary of passenger rail travel is coming up in about six months. Does this group want to do anything? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Relatedly, I do have plans to get Granite Railway – the first common carrier railroad in the US – to GA or FA in time for its 200th anniversary next year. (It wasn't a passenger carrier until decades later, though.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to have Sounder commuter rail at TFA on September 18 (its 25th anniversary), so it would be cool to bookend the celebration with another rail TFA. Just need to get this one through GAN and FAC in time. SounderBruce 04:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Those both sound like good ideas.

I wonder whether any of the non-English Wikipedias are thinking about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

More short descriptions

Hi All- I plan on tackling short descriptions in the train space more generally and I pulled together previous consensus across article types to create a more rail specific table for some consistency on short descriptions. I am not a locomotively inclined editor, but I tried to pull consensus from previous discussions. Honestly, I probably won't be doing locomotives. A reminder, in general, short descriptions should be short WP:SDSHORT. There a few places where I deviate from WP:SDAVOID, mostly in the description of former railways and length when including the province and country. Looking for any suggestions/comments before I am too far along in the journey. Pencilsforall (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Totally missed this, so I added a section link in the old discussion to notify any relevant people. YuniToumei (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Good work on the table so far! A few things from my side: I'm not convinced of deviating from WP:SDAVOID to state "former", as I don't see what makes railroads and trains different from other articles to warrant this different treatment, and as it risks making the short description too long to be useful. The penultimate entry's example short desc should have "early" removed as it directly does not follow the provided scheme in the same row. Same thing with the last entry, it should be "British steam locomotive class (built 1935)" if you follow the scheme.YuniToumei (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I agree with omitting "former" to be consistent with WP:SDAVOID. Unless others disagree, I'll update this table and the previous discussion on former/defunct. I'll also update the SDs for pages I have included "former", but it might take a bit to revise all of them. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you also update the table below about "former" and add an explanative comment about preferring "shunter" when its the type per the discussion above under § Short descriptions? Once that is done, it would be awesome to collect consensus to get this posted to WP:WikiProject Trains/Style advice and link there from the table at WP:WikiProject Short descriptions. YuniToumei (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok- I updated the table to remove "former" and added information about shunting locomotives. I agree about getting broader consensus and posted outside of this talk page (discussions get lost in other topics over time).

Another question: Did we have consensus on including the year built for locomotives? There isn't really a parallel over at WP:SDDATES but I can see it as useful to disambiguate if there are multiple locomotives with a similar short description. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above seemed to have rough consensus. They may help differentiation, but also make short descriptions too long for certain screensizes and also a bit cluttered. However, I think it might not matter that much as we did place it at the end, so when a short description is truncated, only the info with lowest priority (the year) is lost. Perhaps @Danners430 @MediaKyle @Thryduulf @4300streetcar @MichaelMaggs @Musiconeologist have more input. It would be awesome to hear from people from both the train and the short desc wikiprojects. YuniToumei (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

My only comment is to do with the use of "railway station", "railway" and "railway company" - much as I dislike americanisms, they do have a place on Wikipedia... so perhaps a note to say that correct national variations to be used - so "railway stations" becomes "train/railroad stations" in NA, or "railway" becomes "railroad" in the same? I do note that it's already been included in the "biography" row, but if this is to become semi-formal policy, then perhaps we need to be explicit by adding a note in the Notes column. Danners430 (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Good points. I personally think railway/railroad; train/railway station are pretty interchangeable in American English, even for those who are not train enthusiasts, although railroad and train station are more common. I added these alternates as notes in the table. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the rough consensus in previous discussions re: years built for locomotives. It does make the SD long, but the note that the potentially truncated information is year is a good point. Updated the table. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Examples of short descriptions for train articles.

Article Type	Format	Example Article	Suggested Short Description	Notes	Link to Discussion
Station	Railway station in [town/area/region], [country]	Flamatt_Dorf_railway_station	Railway station in Wünnewil-Flamatt, Switzerland	"Train station" may be used if more appropriate for the location
Metro/Rapid Transition Station	Rapid transit station in [city location]	11th_Street_station_(SEPTA)	Rapid transit station in Philadelphia		Talk:Marshfield_station
Railway	Railway in [town/area/region], [country]	Lake_Shore_and_Michigan_Southern_Railway	Railway in the United States	If railway operates in one or two states, list states; if three or more; list larger region; do not list as former or defunct per SD:AVOID; "Railroad" may be used if more appropriate term for location; Narrow-gauge may be noted
Railroad company	Railway company in [town/area/region], [country]	Allentown_Railroad	Railway company in Pennsylvania	Do not list as former/dufunct If railroad is no longer in business, list as former
Biography	[country adjective] [what the person is known for]	James_J._Hill	American railroad promoter and financier (1838–1916)	Same as "person" on WP:Short Description
Locomotive	[Nationality] [traction type OR role] locomotive (Year built)	Salamanca_(locomotive)	British steam locomotive (built 1812)	If shunting locomotive, replace traction type with shunting role	Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Short_descriptions
Locomotive class	[Nationality] [Power source] locomotive class (year built)	LNER_Class_A4; British Rail Class 08	British steam locomotive class (built 1935); Diesel–electric shunting locomotives	If class of shunting locomotive, replace power source with shunting role	Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Short_descriptions

Good article reassessment for British Rail Class 455

British Rail Class 455 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Confederation Line#Requested move 2 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Confederation Line#Requested move 2 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Central Railway Station metro station (Helsinki)#Requested move 30 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Central Railway Station metro station (Helsinki)#Requested move 30 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

brc and rws templates

I'm disappointed with what train articles have become,

• Why does every link now need to be templated instead of "bracketed"?
• Why are we making it 10x harder for everyone to edit articles to appease train enthusiasts?
• Why can't we bin {{brc}} and {{rws}} and go back to the good ol' days of using [[ ]]?,

In 10 years time, I suspect every linked word for train articles will be wrapped in some sort of template and honestly that sucks, I know nothing will change as a result of this post and I know someone's going to reply telling me why these templates are a fantastic idea and why I'm being a miserable <swear word> but honestly I don't think these templates are an improvement and don't benefit anyone nor do I think they streamline anything or make linking easier. –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Those templates aren't helpful at all and are a barrier to entry for newcomers wishing to start editing these articles. Wikipedia text is intentionally easy to edit and understand and that's a sitewide principle. Get rid of the templates they should be appearing in article text.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree as well. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 04:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

These examples all appear to be specific to United Kingdom articles. I've never used templates like this and I can't recall ever seeing them on articles concerning North America. 22:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the benefit of those two templates either, but as some people seem to like using them when writing the easy solution is to subst them. I'm not sure how much consensus a one-time bot run going through substituting them would need (but as a mostly cosmetic edit it would need an active consensus). Once that was done, I'd add a message to the template that displayed only on preview (I believe this is possible but don't know how) as a reminder that the template should be substituted, and we could get that task added to AWB's general fixes so that it automatically happens when something else meaningful happens to the page for any that aren't substituted.

@Trainsandotherthings List of railway stations in Indonesia is full of {{stnlnk}} (which {{rws}} redirects to) templates, and I think I saw one on a French article recently but don't remember which. By its nature {{brc}} is unlikely to see widespread use outside of UK articles. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Templates always have been an integral part of Wikipedia. I daresay you have no objection to the use of Cite Web or Cite Magazine, or should we start manually typing out citations too?

The biggest advantages that I can see from templating are as follows:

• Standardising styles across articles
• Allowing for a single point of truth if things have to change

To expand upon the latter point, if for whatever reason a decision was reached to make a tweak to how UK rail locomotives/multiple unit articles are named, then we wouldn’t have to go through hundreds of articles changing bracketed links, or rely on redirects - you’d only have to make an edit to a template to update them all.

Honestly, provided the templates have good documentation (which I agree could use some work), then why is there a big problem? Danners430 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to pick up on another point… what on earth does the use of templates have to do with “appeasing train enthusiasts”? They’re used to make life easier with less typing, and to make use of standardised article titles… what does that have to do with someone’s supposed hobby off-wiki? Danners430 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with both your points. For standardization of links, I would suggest replacing {{stnlnk}} – and its wrappers like {{rws}} – with {{station link}} and its wrappers. There is a huge advantage to using {{station link}} - because it pulls from adjacent stations and s-line data modules, every link can be updated with a single edit to the relevant data module. That greatly simplifies cleanup after page moves, especially when creating dab pages. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I’d be wholeheartedly in agreement - I didn’t realise that template existed :) Danners430 (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The underlying data for adjacent stations is a PITA to maintain. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's the logical development of the Trains-editing community's dedication to ever more complex templates (of which we've all been a part). The negative case--what if we didn't use all those templates and went back to raw markup--hasn't really been considered. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Wow I didn't expect anyone to read my rant nevermind agree with it, Thank you all for your comments I'm glad I'm not the only person here that strongly dislikes these templates,

@Danners430, {{Cite web}} et al have been around since forever and helps people add references to articles ..... these templates for all intents and purposes simply removes a custom link to an article or depending on the template you end up with more coding so that it goes to the right article,

Both the "problems" listed sound great and all but they're just WP:Solutions looking for a problem .... we've been doing it this way ([[Article name|Custom name]]) for years and for the most part this has never been a problem, –Davey2010^Talk 14:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Stnlink has existed and been in use since 2007, and Template:British Rail Class link since 2009 - they’re not exactly new, so I don’t really think the argument that Cite Web have been around forever holds weight here. That’s not to disparage your other points, just making that note.

I still don’t understand how the templates can be construed as complex either - the RWS/Stnlink template literally takes a name and spits out the railway station name as a link… and BRC takes a class number and spits out the full link too. The only complex piece is if you want to customise how the link is shown - I fail to see how it’s more complicated than traditional links. Danners430 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Why would I want to write [[Liverpool Lime Street railway station]] when {{rws|Liverpool Lime Street}} will do half the work for me. In most cases, the "railway station" element is obvious from context and would be so irritating to the reader as to be piped away on sight. (In running text, how are the adjacent stations relevant? Especially as the (useful) answer is different according to inter-city v semi-fast v all-stations.) So no, it is not broken and it doesn't need fixing. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The answer is {{subst:rws|Liverpool Lime Street}}, which reduces your typing without making anything more difficult for anybody else. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You still haven’t answered the original question though - in what way is it more difficult for users? How is it more difficult to understand or type {{rws|London Euston}} than it is to type [[London Euston Railway Station|London Euston]]? In actual fact, I’d argue it’s far easier to understand the RWS version… so often I’ve read through the source of large articles and been confronted with a sea of blue links - picking out the actual text becomes a chore. With the much shorter and succinct templates, which produce the same output, it’s much easier to find the edit you need to make. Danners430 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@JMF: You may have misunderstood my comment. {{Station link}} does not display the stations adjacent to the linked station - it just uses the adjacent stations data module to format the link. For example, {{station link|Amtrak|New Haven}} produces New Haven. The reason I recommend use of this template is because every link is specified in one place. If Union Station (New Haven) was moved, a single edit to Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak would allow a large number of the incoming links to be updated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I have been using the {{stnlnk|xyz}} template for years. It is much simpler to understand than piping the station name [[xyz railway station|xyz]]. Similarly, {{brc|000}} in its simplest form is straightforward, although the permutations for things such as adding the word 'class' can be a bit challenging until you look at the documentation. If anything, they are there because the article names are complicated by having 'British Rail Class' prefixes, even when they aren't British Rail classes! Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

although the permutations [...] can be a bit challenging until you look at the documentation This is the heart of the issue - for someone reading the wikitext it is very clear that [[British Rail Class 180|Class 180]] produces the Class 180 seen in the rendered article. {{brc|180|c}} on the otherhand is opaque and makes the article much harder to edit (in both wikitext and visual editor) for those not intimately familiar with the template. This is unlike the citation templates which clearly add value in terms of consistent presentation for something complex, categorisation, metadata, etc. The {{brc}} template offers exactly nothing a link doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Then might I suggest we improve the template rather than just binning it at the first opportunity? I’ve been working on improving it, and asked for assistance multiple times and got none. If people have such strong opinions on how it’s structured, then instead of moaning and griping they could stand up and lend a hand! Danners430 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

By asked for assistance multiple times and got none, do you mean that you asked at Template talk:British Rail Class link? That page had only three watchers (four since I added myself just now), I'm guessing that you are one of them; but I have no way of finding out who the other two are. One might be Mattbuck (talk · contribs), who created the template but rarely edits these days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I also asked at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Template changes because I knew the template didn't have many watchers. In the end, I deployed the changes myself, and lo and behold there was a bug which I had to fix... I didn't ask in this particular forum because BRC is specific to UK rail Danners430 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've given up fixing wikilinks but the use of templates in railway stations was a major hurdle on the learning process at WP:DPWL. The arcane intricacies needed to produce a simple wikilink require the largest section in the guide for new disambiguators. I am sure my colleagues would be delighted to see these unhelpful templates replaced by understandable standard syntax. Certes (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

And I'm sure the template using- and editing-community would welcome suggestions with open arms - it never fails to amaze me the readiness for people to dismiss out of hand anything different without even making the most basic attempt at voicing concerns and working with the "opposing" side to improve the problems you perceive. Nobody is denying there must be problems - otherwise nobody would be complaining... but how is anyone meant to improve anything if suggestions aren't forthcoming? Danners430 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that any changes to the template wouldn't solve the fundamental problem that these templates, and any new or changed templates doing the same job, turn something that is very simple into something that is needlessly complicated. If you like using the templates when editing, fine, just subst them so that you get the benefits while the rest of us don't get the problems. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I make a genuine request @Thryduulf... Three times now you've stated that the templates turn something that is very simple into something that is needlessly complicated - and twice already, I've asked you to clarify what you mean by this statement. So I'm going to ask a third time - What about these templates makes them difficult to use? What's difficult about understanding that {{brc|170}} generates a link to the wikipedia article about the class 170, or that {{rws|London Euston}} generates a link to the wikipedia article about the railway station in that location? I fail to understand how that's needlessly complicated in any way, shape or form... Danners430 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to explain it multiple times: Wiki-links are simple to understand, simple to read, and simple to interact with. You can look at [[British Rail Class 170|Class 170]] and require no other knowledge to know what it does or how to amend that to display "Class 170s". If I'm looking to make that change I'm likely going to open the section for editing and ctrl-f for "Class 170" and it's going to come up blank. I eventually find {{brc|170}}, now how do I make the change I want? I have to pause what I'm doing, load a separate tab, navigate to Template:brc, and scour the documentation to learn that I need to add the cryptic "|cs" to the template. Now imagine I'm a new editor who isn't very comfortable with templates. Now let's look at the experience in the Visual editor - I find what I want to edit and discover that it's generated from a template and so I need to open a dialog to edit that, but because there is no template data associated with the template I get a meaningless box with a yellow warning saying "This template is missing TemplateData, and its parameters have been autogenerated. As a result the template and its parameters lack descriptions. There might be additional information on the template's page.". At this point I'm going to either give up (I've wasted my time, the article isn't fixed, and potentially a new editor isn't recruited so other articles don't get fixed or written) or just delete the template and use a plain link (the template just made things needlessly difficult). {{rws}} does have some template data so the visual editor experience isn't quite as bad (but there are still only absolutely minimal instructions and no explanation), but I still have to read and understand multiple boxes, and learn what format it wants things in, just to get exactly the same output as a bog standard wikilink - I still have to know what the article is titled, but additionally I need to know what bits of the title are the station name and what bits are the location and there is no way to know if I've linked to the right article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The Template Data I wholly agree with - and I disagree that it's a fundamental thing that can't be fixed... perhaps it's time to add template data and suddenly the issue with the visual editor is no more. All we need is someone willing to add it, as unfortunately I've never touched template data before.

Another point you validly make is but there are still only absolutely minimal instructions and no explanation - again, that can be solved by improving template data and the template documentation... again, I've asked for help but people seem to be hell-bent on destroying the template without even trying to assist in making it better.

Finally, your point about the station location - while it's valid, this is why we have standardised names - all station names follow the same naming pattern, so they can be easily found. Again, the templates can be updated to assist with easily finding station names.

Apologies if I'm coming across a little annoyed... it just irks me when people jump on a bandwagon to get rid of something that's been in use for over 15 years without even once trying to constructively improve it. Danners430 (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that even if all the possible improvements to the templates are made, they would still be inferior to simple wikitext links for the reasons I've tried to explain multiple times already. Clearly I haven't articulated it well enough as you haven't understood, but I can't think of any other way to say it. Maybe Davey2010 can? Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

They are inferior in one way, and superior in another - they're far superior in that some editors fine them easier to use and much faster to add and edit than full wikilinks. Obviously not everyone, but some (and not a small minority, given I'm far from the only user of these templates. I just happen to use them a lot when GNOMEing.

I think the two points under debate here (your point about "inferiority" and my counter argument about ease of use for some editors) end up being personal preference of editors... and from my understanding, we shouldn't be writing dictat to prioritise the preferences of some editors over others unless there are clear advantages one way or the other. I don't think there really are in either direction unless I'm missing something? Danners430 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue with personal preference when editing is exactly why I propose substituting them - those who find them helpful when writing can continue to use them, but those of us who come along later and find them a significant added burden are not impacted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Except I'm not just talking about the creation of links - I'm also talking about the editing of links. As I mentioned earlier, I also find them exceedingly helpful when searching through the source for specific text or links, as they don't clutter up the text as much. Substituting them removes that advantage entirely, and means they're only ever useful when creating the link in the first instance. Danners430 (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The extensive problems I articulated above, especially for new editors, far far outweigh marginally shorter but crypic wikitext. When searching wikitext for a link I always search for the wikilink syntax (because why on earth would I not?) so the mild advantage for you is actually a significant disadvantage to others. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I would concur with this point Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 04:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel as though I'm beginning to take over the topic somewhat, which isn't healthy for discussion, so I'm going to step away for a day or so (unless someone is asking me a question specifically). Perhaps @10mmsocket, @Mattdaviesfsic, @Maurice Oly, @Murgatroyd49, @XAM2175 or @XtraJovial would like to comment? Just because I know you edit in the UK rail areas :-) Danners430 (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally I can't see the difficulty in using the templates, they make life a lot easier when editing IME. The main problem is finding what templates actually exist, is there a list somewhere? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been using {{stnlnk}} since at least July 2009. That's to say, less than three months after I joined. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Whenever editing articles I prefer to use [[]], as for me it is easier as I don't always use source editing I like to edit using Visual Editor when I can.
As far as I know Visual Editor does not allow you to add templates like [[British Rail Class {{{1}}}|Class {{{1}}}]], [[{{{1}}} railway station|{{{1}}}]] or [[{{{1}}} railway station|{{{1}}}]]. Maurice Oly (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Would agree with Thryduulf's - especially the last point above - and Maurice Oly's points wholeheartedly.

Requested move at Talk:Schaarbeek railway station#Requested move 16 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Schaarbeek railway station#Requested move 16 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Leven railway station (Fife)#Requested move 19 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leven railway station (Fife)#Requested move 19 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment on Indian train service articles

1. Should articles on Indian train services, when they are not especially notable on their own, be deleted?
2. If so, can they be nominated in larger bunches at AFD (or through PROD)?

Please consider not only notability, but also WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE. NS-Merni (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Going through these articles, it is clear enough that the vast majority of these are just regurgitations of timetable, route and train formation information, mostly sourced from sites like [1] (a crowd-sourced unofficial timetable database not unlike a wiki). The information obviously changes every year, too. There are two main concerns I have with these articles:

1. WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTGUIDE. This kind of information doesn't really belong in a wiki.
2. Notability. Most of these articles are on random individual train services running at most once a day (and often a few times a week). These are not "lines" but individual timetabled services. Having articles on each of them does not seem to satisfy notability. Coverage in sources on most of them is totally routine regarding delays, timetable changes and so on. There are only a few which have their own historical importance or other significance.

Here is some data on these articles and here is a list of AFD discussions on them in the past. In particular, this nomination, which originally aimed to delete 244 articles, received a deal of negative feedback on its size and a "Procedural keep" result, with several comments that an RfC may be worthwhile.

I want to get the community's idea on whether these articles should be kept in general or only if the particular service is notable in itself. If the latter, also whether it would be suitable to nominate them for AfD in larger bundles (after of course doing due research on each of them to check if there is significant non-routine coverage), and if so how large. NS-Merni (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Certainly any that aren't individually notable should go.

I'm not aware of batch size limits but I'd say don't go mad as that would make it difficult for interested editors to review. I'm also not sure if this type of thing is suitable for a bundle at all? Wiser heads will no doubt advise. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer: There are no batch size limits that have been agreed and written down; but there is a technical limit, which unfortunately isn't quantifiable. Consider: every AfD page uses at least three templates ({{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}, {{la}} and {{Find sources AFD}}); and a bundled nomination - such as would be appropriate for these cases - would have one {{la}} for each different article, plus one each of the other two. All of these will get transcluded, along with the AfD proper, to the daily AfD page. If there are too many nominated articles, all of those {{la}} can max out the WP:PEIS for the daily AfD page. This has happened before; but we cannot say "it will fall over when there are x articles up for deletion", because x varies according to several factors. Apart from that, the AfD regulars might complain about being swamped. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Neither question can be accurately answered with a single word. Any articles about train services that are not individually notable should be deleted, merged and/or redirected depending on the specifics of the subject. These are rarely suitable to large bundles, but small bundles of closely related articles (e.g. ones about which similar levels of sourcing exist and which could be merged to the same target) can be acceptable. How big is too big depends on the similarity of the bundled articles, the volume of search results (if there are only a handful of pages to look at it's very easy to determine the depth of coverage, if there are hundreds then this obviously takes more time and effort), the volume of sources that might be reliable and/or in-depth (for the same reason), the ease of access of the sources and the number of other concurrent discussions about similar topics (in this case articles about transportation services and articles about Indian railways). It's also important to stress that many sources related to Indian railways are not written in English. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of your last point, being an Indian and knowing two Indian languages! But in practice, it's quite rare that there is important coverage in non-English sources that doesn't make its way into English sources in India at least eventually. (It's a different matter for purely routine and local information.) The point is definitely worth noting though. NS-Merni (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Certainly not in batches There are undoubtedly numerous articles in that class that are non-notable, but determining that notability is typically going to require more work than a quick web search, work that editors in general have historically either been unwilling or poorly equipped to do. So I think it absolutely needs to be on a case-by-case basis.
  Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Notability is not the only thing that needs to be considered, but also WP:NOT.

  Leaving that aside, in your opinion, what "more work" beyond web and perhaps Google Books searches would be needed to nominate (taking a random example) Satavahana Express for deletion? NS-Merni (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, but lack of notability is itself a reason to delete, or merge and redirect. Notability does not even apply if the material is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, in which case complete deletion is appropriate. If an article is nominated for deletion and is found to contain material that can be merged into a related topic, merge and redirect is an appropriate close for RfD. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  but also WP:NOT — I don’t believe that’s an issue at the topic level. If a topic is passing GNG, the article should exist. WP:NOT mainly applies to content.

  Most train services in the US and certain other countries are notable and have articles.

  Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  From what I can see, it is routes that have articles in the US. For instance, there aren't articles on each individual departure of the Acela. (Besides, the US has way fewer passenger train routes and services than India) NS-Merni (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support batch deletion of all articles of unnamed services (ex. "[TERMINAL A] - [TERMINAL B] Express") There's a lot of articles where the "name" is just the two terminals and the type of services. It is really unlikely that such articles would be notable so they would be a good choice for a batch removal. Train services that have an actual name have better hopes in both sourcing availability & ability to find those sources so those articles should still be nominated individually. Jumpytoo Talk 04:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's not so simple! For instance, the Mumbai CSMT–Chennai Express has been running for over a century with generic names, and has even had a movie named after it -- IMO this would definitely be notable. There are other such examples too. On the other hand, there are plenty of services (as a random example, Samudra Kanya Express) that have names despite not being significant in any other way. NS-Merni (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  That unnamed train you linked seems to be actually a named train, looking at the Commons images it has a name of "Chennai Express". We can have a way to call out these exception cases before doing batches. Regarding your second point, I agree named trains could also be not notable, I am only suggesting that they should still be nominated individually as what would be needed currently. Jumpytoo Talk 02:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Articles that do not meet notability criteria are unsuitable as stand-alone Wikipedia articles. If the information is encyclopedic in nature it should go in a section in an appropriate article on a related topic, with a suitable redirect. If the information is not encyclopedic it should not be in an encyclopedia. This is standard practice. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Part of the reason I started this RFC is exactly to decide whether this kind of information is "encyclopedic" or not! NS-Merni (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  That is not a question asked in the RfC, so you are unlikely to get a useful answer to it here · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Batch deletion still requires each article to be considered on its merits or lack thereof. Batch nomination works best for groups that are obviously similar in quality. The procedure will get bogged down if there are some keeps, some deletes and some borderlines in the batch. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Suggestion First, thanks for taking the time to embark on this. Can I suggest that you be bold and make a start. If you feel batches would be easier, go for three or four at a time taking note of the views above and keeping the criteria for each batch as tight as possible. Then see how it goes after the first one or two batches.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Deal on a case-by-case basis: Plenty of trains have a significant history, heritage, fanfare and coverage associated with them. Just because some of them may be unnamed is not a valid reason for batch deletion. Conversely, some named services might not be notable enough too. Either way, they should be dealt on a case-by-case basis, and where 3 or 4 services are somehow related to each other, then only use batches only for those related articles. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

S-line update

As of today Template:S-line has no more stations that use it's system of sub-templates. Its 1.2k transclusions left (down from 18,335 December 2020) are mostly (or all?) UK pages. Template:Rail line which is similar is still in use with with 10k transclusions. Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Glad I could help with this. S-line is currently being invoked through Template:S-rail-national. There are no sub-templates left so the invocation count should be identical to Template:Rail line. Cards84664 19:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

IIRC we're waiting for Module:Adjacent stations/Great British Railways. Cards84664 19:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ebbw Valley Railway

Ebbw Valley Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

New article, please help out

I WP:COPYWITHINed and spiced things up a bit to create a Classic rail in China article. Please help me expand it. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Metrovagonmash 81-717/81-714#Requested move 30 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Metrovagonmash 81-717/81-714#Requested move 30 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)