Talk:Train

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}

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)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{tlx|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)

{{Talk:Train/GA1}}

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. {{pb}} 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.{{pb}}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)

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Train/1}}

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)

:::{{tq|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)

::::{{U|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.

::::::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Train_topics&diff=prev&oldid=1253694983 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)