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

RfC on adjacent stations modules for people mover and streetcar systems

Some people mover and streetcar systems lack dedicated articles for their individual stations or stops, yet have adjacent station modules. Should the adjacent stations modules for these particular systems be retained or removed? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Retain, but either redirect the links to the appropriate "parent" article or remove the redlinks. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to provide some additional context for why I created this RfC. Many airport people mover systems and streetcar systems lack dedicated articles covering their individual stations or stops. This is often because the individual stations or stops themselves do not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and thus are not suited to have dedicated articles.

Furthermore, my impression of the adjacent stations module used in railway (and even bus and other transportation) systems is that the module is intended to assist readers while traveling between articles; specifically articles regarding specific stations along a particular railway line. If a reader were to be interested in reading about or interested in the sequencing or service patterns of these stations, the adjacent stations module is designed to provide a simple, intuitive interface within the infoboxes located at the top of these articles.

However, many of these systems that lack dedicated station articles still have these modules, while others do not. This has left me feeling a bit perplexed over whether these systems should either consistently retain these modules or remove them altogether. I have noticed that many of these modules which do exist are placed in articles covering a shared terminal with larger railway systems, where said terminals are notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Here, the modules would instead link to redirects to the main articles about those systems, instead of standalone station articles. In cases where these modules do not exist, the people mover/streetcar systems themselves are often simply listed as a connection instead at the shared terminal's article.

For full transparency however, my personal stance is leaning more towards the latter case, since my impression is that the practicality of the module is rendered a bit redundant if there are no station articles to link to, and that simply listing the system as a connection effectively communicates the same amount of information to a reader. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If the stops are not notable, links to stop→line redirects are often redundant because the line itself is already linked nearby, often in an infobox or table such as

Previous station	Notional Rail	Next station
Abattoir Avenue	Tedious Tramway	Sewer Street

where the two outer links redirect to the inner one. Certes (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

For me, an important use of the module is standardizing colors and icons. For example, Module:Adjacent stations/Basel tramway network. No termini are defined at all. This may qualify as off-label use; it might be better if there was an explicit flag that prevented using it for station links at all. Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. I think such a flag would be useful. Other templates like TM:rcr and TM:rcb depend on this module for the icons. FWIW the docs seem to say that you could use a Template:system color template instead, but some of these color templates seem to have been superseded into the adjacent stations modules, such as at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Template:VR color once termini and stations came into play. Judging from Category:Rail transport color templates it seems like the main usage of such color-only templates lies within the UK rail systems. IMO using the adjacent stations module feels more centralized since it can fulfill both the icon standardization and the station sequence purpose as a single module. YuniToumei (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, "system color" is a vestige of the {{s-line}} templates. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I also second the flag suggestion, I think it's a good idea. If there is a need for some systems to standardize colors and icons, then yeah, the modules should definitely be retained.

But yeah, Certes provided an excellent visual example of what I was initially referring to. In my opinion, when the two outer links don't link to actual station articles, it defeats the primary purpose of using the module. At that point, it lacks utility and just becomes visual clutter. A link listing the smaller system as a connection is far more elegant. And unless there wasn't really a need to standardize colors and icons, then there isn't a need to have a module for those systems in the first place. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryScarlett: Why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without, so far as I can tell, exhausting the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE? Where, for instance, is the prior discussion that has reached deadlock and made this RfC necessary? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I'm very, very sorry. This was the very first RfC I had opened and I wasn't familiar with the necessary procedures that I needed to follow prior to opening it. It wasn't my intention to bypass procedure, and I promise to not do it again next time. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I doubt I am the only person who thinks this could have been worded in a much kinder, less bitey way, @Redrose64:... Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 20:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I tend to concur. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

How would you have worded it? Bear in mind that RfC is not a first step, it is an instrument of last resort, used when all other methods have failed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"Hi so-and-so, Wikipedia RfCs are normally used when other discussions have not reached a fuller consensus. You may wish to look at WP:RFCBEFORE about other methods of gaining consensus on this matter. Hope that helps! Any questions, let me know." Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 21:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You see how that is much nicer and worded much more gently than that above. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 21:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Transport Construction Authority#Requested move 11 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Transport Construction Authority#Requested move 11 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lok Kalyan Marg metro station#Requested move 16 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lok Kalyan Marg metro station#Requested move 16 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — EarthDude (Talk) 09:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sunshine railway station#Requested move 12 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sunshine railway station#Requested move 12 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

When was the merger of the Bodensee–Toggenburg railway with Südostbahn (both in Switzerland)?

The text of Bodensee–Toggenburg railway says these two merged on 1 January 2001 (lead paragraph), with the history section of the page clarifying this was agreed to take effect retroactively. The only reference I can find is "Swiss Merger Agreed". Railway Gazette International. 1 May 2001. Retrieved 23 July 2026. which says agreement was reached in March 2001 to merge effective 1 January 2002. The German version says 1 Jan 2001, but with no reference.

The Südostbahn page says the merger occurred at the "end of 2001".

Can anyone shed any light on this?

(I've also posed this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Switzerland) Newystats (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Replied on the WT:CH thread. YuniToumei (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

State Railway of Thailand RHN

The State Railway of Thailand RHN article has been nominated for deletion because it is unsourced. Can we find some references please? Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Major, possibly undiscussed change to the importance assessment scale back in 2021?

I noticed that an edit in 2021 with the summary "copy edit" replaced the table outlining the project's importance scale – which at the time was significantly more tailored to the project – with Template:Importance scheme sans any custom criteria text, meaning the descriptions under the criteria column default to that of the generic template. I can't seem to find any discussion of it either before or after the change. It's certainly far more than just a "copy edit", and it's difficult to see how this is an improvement. Should it be reverted? Astro.furball (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The edit also customized {{Grading scheme}} with project-specific examples. The text in {{Importance scheme}} is customizable if you think that would be an improvement. Using a standard template instead of a custom hand-coded table is a reasonable change to make. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Brampton GO Station#Requested move 17 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brampton GO Station#Requested move 17 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

PKP Class Pt47

While i was expanding PKP class Pt47, i noticed that in the website called Pt47.pl on the construction section, the sources are not placed next to the information where they originally come from and instead are placed at the bottom of the site, which makes it difficult where to cite information of PKP class Pt47. I need someone responsible to properly fix those citations on this article, i do not have any of these books to find sources from it. Type C cable cord (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

It's on the design section by the way. Type C cable cord (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Johor Bahru–Singapore Rapid Transit System#Requested move 24 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Johor Bahru–Singapore Rapid Transit System#Requested move 24 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 23:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:G-class Melbourne tram#Requested move 3 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:G-class Melbourne tram#Requested move 3 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. FaviFake (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)