Talk:Train

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

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

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: Slightly pedantic, but steel tracks with steel wheels don’t “allow” low friction, it just is a low friction system. What about Most trains operate on steel tracks with steel wheels, the low friction of which makes them more efficient than other forms of transport. I've adopted your suggested wording for this sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Y There’s a theme of not being exact, e.g. “early 1800s”. Now some such examples are fine, e.g. “Italy… first decades of the 20th century”. But others feel like they could be tightened up on, e.g. in the second half of the 1700s. and during the first decades of the 20th century. I know not all examples will be capable of being narrowed down, but I think a review of these would help. I've specified more exact dates for several of these, let me know if you see any other candidates for more specific dates. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Y Following the development of more flexible cars – I know what we’re trying to say here, but it’s vague. Rewritten as "Following the development of cars, trucks, and extensive networks of highways which offered greater mobility, as well as faster airplanes, trains declined in importance and market share, and many rail lines were abandoned." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Y In medieval times, wagonways were introduced to haul material from mines; from the 1790s, stronger iron rails were introduced. – these aren’t closely linked enough for a semicolon. We’ve skipped a massive part of development and linked them like they are closely related. I've reviewed the source for this, and unfortunately it also jumps straight from describing wagonways used in medieval times to the development of iron rails in the 1790s, with nothing else in between. From what I've been able to gather, there was not much development in wagonway technology at all until iron rails were introduced. Canals and horse-drawn carts were the way most cargo was moved. The best I can do is specify that medieval wagonways largely began in the 1500s. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Y In medieval times are we happy this is specific enough? Link to an article? As I said immediately above, the source I'm using here does not specify beyond "medieval times". It concludes the paragraph dedicated to trains before steam by basically saying that before steam locomotives, they were not a primary method of transporting cargo or people. Most use was in and near mines. The articles I could link to here are Wagonway (already linked just before) and Plateway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC) My point on this one is to ask the question will the average reader be clear on what medieval times means? A link might be appropriate? Mark83 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC) I actually didn't realize the Medieval period was considered to be from the 5th century to the 15th century, a thousand or so years. The idea I had in my head was that it was only a few centuries. With that in mind, I've specified that it started mostly in the 1500s.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Y at up to what was at the time a brisk speed of 8 miles per hour sentence a bit clumbsy. Removed that part of the sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Y Other European countries pursued their own designs, distinct from those of both Britain and America. “distinct from those of both Britain and America” is redundant based on the start of the para. Wording changed, I've cut the end of this sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Y trains reached > trains were adopted? Changed to "Trains first entered service in..." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Y Japan which was never colonized, relevance? The relevance of this is that trains in that country were not built by colonizing powers (for the purposes of exploiting said colonies), but developed independently (though greatly influenced by European and American train technology) in Japan instead. Open to suggestions on how to convey that point more clearly, or potentially remove it instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Y Understood. Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC) first decade of the 1900s > 1910s No, this is referring to between 1900 and 1910. I couldn't just say "the 1900s" since that implies the entire century. Unsure how to improve this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I'm suggesting replacing "first decade of the 1900s" with "the 1910s", it's less words that mean the same thing. I didn't suggest saying "the 1900s". Mark83 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC) "The 1910s" is not correct, because I'm referring to between 1900 and 1910. "The 1910s" means between 1910 and 1920. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Cringing at my own stupidity here. Sorry! Mark83 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC) YMark83 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC) thanks to lower costs, > due to lower costs? (ignore if you disagree). Using the term "thanks" appears to be a quirk of my writing style, I remember this being pointed out to me at one of my other GANs earlier this month. I decided to change the wording here as you suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC) However, a new type of train service was devised which turned this trend around in many places – “in many places” is too vague. And this is meant to introduce high speed rail? Not clear enough. Yeah, that wording isn't great. I've rewritten it now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Y In the rest of the world, high speed trains did not take off as quickly top vague – where? How “not as quickly”? I've essentially decided to cut this down and let the previous sentence speak on its own, just moving from that right into "the first high speed train in the Americas was the Acela". The book I used for much of this section ends at 2000, so I'd need to do some more research to talk more about 21st century high speed rail developments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC) While early trains used hand brakes, which are still found on most railroad cars to stop them frommoving when parked, the predominant braking system for trains around the world is air brakes, which can be applied at once to the entire train thanks to air hoses. run on sentence, and “thanks to air hoses” feels informal. I've rewritten this now along with a bit more detail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Like all equipment, trains must periodically be maintained. Is this a bit redundant? Sentence removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Y Several types of employees work with trains Same concern. I've removed this sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Y On passenger trains, other crew members work with passengers – passengers don’t work. The idea I was trying to convey by "work with" was how conductors and porters and other similar workers do a variety of things to assist passengers, such as helping load and unload luggage, helping passengers alight and exit from trains, maintain passenger accommodations in sleeping cars, serve food in dining cars, etc. Would saying "assist passengers" or a similar wording be better? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, "assist passengers" would be clearer? 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Y Change made. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Around the word > world Unsure what you are suggesting here. The sentence currently says "Railfans are found around the world." Are you suggesting I change the way it is written? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC) It's the first sentence in the 'gauge' section, "Around the word" Mark83 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Oops, I see it now. Fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Y is the most common gauge worldwide, though both broad-gauge and narrowgauge trains are also in use globally. lose “globally”. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Y remove prior to the development of steam locomotives from “before steam” section as it’s redundant based on the title. Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Y Steam section: First developed in the early 1800s, is already covered? Same with In the mid 20th century, most steam locomotives were replaced by diesel or electric locomotives, which were cheaper, cleaner, and more reliable.? And the same point made in the next section (diesel). #“Far more” more WTW (see below). Some redundancy with the history section is necessary here in order for me to cover the differences between steam and diesel. I can trim some things, such as the first sentence under the steam subheader. I can remove that sentence, and instead of directly comparing, simply list the advantages and disadvantages of each method of motive power in their respective subsections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Y Understood.Mark83 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC) In “train cars” check punctuation for a prose list. I can't find any sort of official guidelines or policies on prose lists. Just the same, I made some edits to the wording and formatting here, hopefully that resolved your concern here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) YI'm sorry, I think I thought this should have been a colon > semicolon list. Reading again it's fine. Mark83 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC) railway field is a bit vague > industry? Agree that's not great wording. One of the only sections I didn't take an axe to and rewrite. Just rewrote that sentence. The references in the monorail section may need to be looked at as well, as they predate my rewrite in early November 2021. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Y
	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” Resolved. Mark83 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
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.	Not exactly OR, but a point of accuracy. In lead: Experimental trains such as maglevs, which use magnetic levitation to float above a guideway, are under development in the 2020s and offer higher speeds than even the fastest conventional trains., but the article states that these were developed in the previous century and gives an example of maglev operational in 1984. Maglev as a concept has been used in a few installations, most low speed, such as that 1984 one, which was all of 600 meters in length. Long distance, high speed maglev is still in development, the longest current system is the Shanghai maglev train which is 18 miles long (29 km). The Maglev article covers this more, but while many systems are planned and a few are actively being built, most are simply proposals right now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) I've now specified "high speed maglevs" which hopefully clears the ambiguity. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Y Again, point of accuracy: In the 21st century, services such as the French TGV and German Intercity Express are competitive with airplanes in travel time over short to medium distances But flights are much cheaper, so high speed trains must have been ‘’even more’’ competitive in the 20th century? Well, the extensive high speed networks of countries like Japan, France, and Italy were not as developed back then. Early high-speed trains were not as fast (the 0 Series Shinkansen topped out at 210 km/h (130 mph) as built), and some of the networks hadn't been built yet. This is a whole topic unto itself, but high speed rail outside Japan really took off with faster, lighter, and more comfortable second-generation trains in the 1980s to 1990s, like the SNCF TGV Atlantique and the 300 Series Shinkansen. Even more so around the start of the 21st century with things like the 700 Series Shinkansen and SNCF TGV POS which are even faster and more advanced. The U.K. got started with InterCity 125 in the late 1970s, but that topped out at 125 mph. Many European countries quite simply did not have high speed networks at all until the 1990s. Intercity Express started in 1989, for instance. Spain's network started in 1992, and the U.S. didn't get around to high speed rail until 2000 with the Acela. China started in 2003, with South Korea and Taiwan a few years after that. Turkey's first launched in 2009, Uzbekistan's first in 2011. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Y So there may have been examples in the 20th century, but this was embryonic compared to 21st century. Understood Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Fast train travel made possible in days or hours journeys which previously took months. If a journey takes a train days or hours, it wouldn’t take a horse months? I found this on history.com: "A mere 83 hours after leaving New York City, the Transcontinental Express train arrives in San Francisco. That any human being could travel across the entire nation in less than four days was inconceivable to previous generations of Americans. During the early 19th century, when Thomas Jefferson first dreamed of an American nation stretching from “sea to shining sea,” it took the president 10 days to travel the 225 miles from Monticello to Philadelphia via carriage. Even with frequent changing of horses, the 100-mile journey from New York to Philadelphia demanded two days hard travel in a light stagecoach. At such speeds, the coasts of the continent-wide American nation were months apart." Later on it also says "By 1869, the first transcontinental line linking the coasts was completed. Suddenly, a journey that had previously taken months using horses could be made in less than a week." [1] This suggests that the wording I have is overall correct. Perhaps I can remove the "hours" part, but I'm trying to take a broad view here, and trips that previously took days by horse only took hours by train. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC) That makes sense. I suppose this query came up because in your head you were thinking of intercontinental trips and I was thinking in the hundreds of miles bracket. Maybe just something like "for example, the trip from [east coast location] to [west coast location]? Mark83 (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Towns and cities along railroad lines grew in importance, while those bypassed declined or even became ghost towns. don’t think the reference covers decline/ghost towns? Added a citation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Y Major cities such as Chicago became prominent because they were places where multiple train lines met. – no reference for this? And we can’t self reference, but I had a look and our Chicago article doesn’t back this statement up. Cited, but I can't link what I cited here or this stupid table breaks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Y non-indigenous migrants – is that correct? I was a little skeptical of this wording myself, but it was pointed out to me that the way I originally wrote this glossed over the role trains played in the U.S. taking over the land of Native Americans. @MSG17: you may wish to respond here, I see you added this particular sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, I did add that to at least allude to the role of the railways as part of the colonization and eviction of indigenous people (and also because settling of the western part of the nation by westerners sounded awkward to me). Honestly, I think that instead of just looking at the US and Russia, there might be commons themes of railroads being a major tool of economic exploitation, migration, connection and displacement across the world, both for positive and negative effects and particularly in colonialist/imperialist contexts. But, I couldn't really find any comprehensive material for this at the time. Maybe I should look again? MSG17 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Y For commons themes of railroads being a major tool of economic exploitation, migration, connection and displacement across the world, both for positive and negative effects I think for me to push for that is getting us into Featured Article criteria. I just bumped on it, but it's not something I'd fail GA nomination on. Happy to leave this one with you.Mark83 (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Toy train sets are commonly used by children, particularly boys. I’m not ‘woke’, but even I bumped on this. And the reference is Toy trains : [1935-1975]. A lot has changed! That's one of the few parts of the article not written by me. User:Sdkb pointed out to me that the cultural impact section was lacking, and made some improvements. I'll freely admit cultural impact is one of the areas of trains where my background knowledge isn't quite as strong. I'll need to look for other sources covering this, it may take a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Coming to it from a sociological angle (my background), my understanding is that, despite a few strides toward degendering, toy trains are still given far more often to boys than girls, and there's presumably a recent reliable source discussing it. That's absolutely not an endorsement of that practice—the fact that toy stores generally still have separate aisles for boys and girls is incredibly problematic, just as it would be if they had a separate aisle for toys for black children. But so long as it remains true, it's a significant piece of information that we should document. Sdkbtalk 20:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC) But if we're going to document it, we need a reference that isn't ~45 years old? Mark83 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I've dropped in a citation to a very recent (October 2021) book on the sociology of women which covers this in some detail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC) But the author's commentary is based on studies from the 1970s. Rather than going down a rabbit hole (in terms of your time) why don't we just go for Toy train sets are commonly used by children. and remove the commentary on boys and girls? Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Y That's probably the best solution for now, I can come back to this later on and improve it after doing more research. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Point of accuracy: Following the war's conclusion in 1945, nations which had suffered extensive damage to their railroad networks took the opportunity provided by Marshall Plan funds and advances in technology to convert their trains to diesel or electric power - but many of the nations with damaged railways were 'behind the Iron Curtain' and they didn't avail of Marshall Plan funds. Reword needed. This is true, instead they received funding and technological support from the USSR and Comecon. I've added mention of this to the article now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Y Freight trains are significantly more efficient than trucks, while also emitting far fewer greenhouse gas emissions per ton-mile. source? And WP:WTW, how much "far fewer". I believe I said this elsewhere, but I have an exact statistic from [2] of 63 GCO2-EQ/PASSENGER-KM. I need to find the stats for other modes to make a comparison. To quote this source: "On average, rail requires 12 times less energy and emits 7-11 times less GHGs per passenger-km travelled than private vehicles and airplanes, making it the most efficient mode of motorised passenger transport. Aside from shipping, freight rail is the most energy-efficient and least carbon-intensive way to transport goods. The low energy and CO2 intensities of rail transport make promoting rail a promising strategy to diversify energy sources and reduce emissions. However, like all other transport infrastructure, rail investment is expensive. High passenger or freight throughput (i.e. high infrastructure utilisation) is necessary for a rail construction project to pay off, both economically and environmentally. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Y Now sourced to the International Energy Agency, with a quote added to make the significance clear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
	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.	Is it a bit US-centric? Please give me your general response on this and I can follow up with examples if necessary. I've made efforts to avoid being too US-centric, but it is certainly possible more work is needed in achieving this. I live in the U.S. and it is what I am most familiar with, but I've tried to make sure I include a global perspective (one example that was deliberate was including a photo of trains in Zimbabwe, and I tried to maintain a good geographic distribution for photos in the montage in the lead (they include Russia, Germany, Switzerland, India, New Zealand, and the United States). I was hoping that other editors who are familiar with trains in other parts of the world would step up and help me out, but as you can see from the article history it's pretty much just been rewritten by me. Can you point out some specific examples to me? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC) YNo, I understand. Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC) A subset of high speed trains are higher speed trains, which bridge the gap between conventional and high speed trains, and travel at speeds between the two. the reader could benefit from examples of these? Y Examples added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC) In the United States, railroads on average moved a ton of freight 436 miles (702 km) per gallon of fuel, as of 2008, an efficiency four times greater than that of trucks. Could we find an up-to-date assessment? A lot has changed in 13 years. Will see if I can find more recent safety statistics. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC) This is about efficiency. Mark83 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, you are right. My brain meant one thing but said another. I found [3], which quantifies the greenhouse gas intensity of rail per passenger-km as of 2020 as 63 GCO2-EQ/PASSENGER-KM. To quote the source: "Rail is one of the most energy-efficient transport modes, responsible for 9% of global motorised passenger movement and 7% of freight but only 3% of transport energy use.". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Train safety not covered in anything like enough detail. For example more detail on development and use of systems, maybe mention of major accident(s) to give examples of how serious they can be, how such incident(s) have contributed to safety measures. Happy for summary style to mean this is developed as a summary and a "main" link - this is requried either way. I did mention the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in this section, which was a particularly deadly one in recent history (2013). There aren't a ton I can point to in recent decades as train travel is overall very safe. Certainly there are some historic ones that were very serious, an example for you is the Tay Bridge disaster in the U.K. I've made it a point to keep strictly to summary style to keep the overall word count down - I am consciously trying to avoid ending up with an article like Steam locomotive which, at a prose size of 17,847 words, 112,058 characters, is far too long to summarize the key points, in my opinion. In contrast, Train is presently at 4,118 words, 26,287 characters, which leaves us plenty of room to expand. Some things I can touch on more here include automatic train stop, the recent implementation of Positive train control in the U.S., the development of the Railway air brake, and the banning of dangerous practices such as Poling. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Personally, I don't find the safety coverage particularly underweighted. The fact that trains are so safe compared to other modes of transport means it doesn't need as much coverage as it would if this were e.g. automobile, and while train crashes do make the news regularly, that's largely just because of the media bias toward exception rather than ongoing events (each train crash is large enough it makes the news, whereas there isn't an article or ITN entry every time the equivalent number of people die in car crashes; coverage also here). As an encyclopedia, we should take a broader view. My concerns about this section are more that it's weighted toward the U.S. and toward recent events. Sdkbtalk 22:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I don't want sensationalist content. I just think the reader does not get a summary of the protection systems that prevent accidents. And there should be {{main}} link to the appropriate article(s). Train protection system maybe? Mark83 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC) That makes sense. For the link, though, Train protection system would make more sense if this were Rail transport rather than Train. - Sdkb This subsection already links to Automatic train stop and Centralized traffic control, but I can elaborate more on what they do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC) 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) YIs there no article(s) that could be {{main}} linked? But going to close this point now. Plenty of consideration and attention given to this query. Mark83 (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC) I wish there was an article like Train safety or Railway safety (latter is a redirect to 2 paragraphs in the rail transport article) I could link to, but none exists as far as I can tell. Maybe I'll make one myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Again, Not OR, but an issue with one sentence & reference. Trains have long had a major influence on music, art, and literature. - The reference talks about the impact on US culture only. Not only would a different or another referece be good for other parts of the world, but I think maybe another sentence or two on the romanticism of trains in literature and also cinema. I'll see if I can find a reference for this. Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 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. But trains are the answer to all our problems! Jokes aside, there has been a fundamental reevaluation of the importance of trains since roughly the 1970s, with the oil embargo causing high fuel prices, and a growing appreciation of issues with pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Many governments actively promote railroads. I mean, there's nothing that would justify a "criticism" section here. The big disadvantages of trains are that they lack the flexibility of trucks/lorries or automobiles, and in most cases are not as fast as aircraft. Do you feel I should touch upon those points more? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I don't have strong feelings on this, and your commentary makes sense. Maybe something to consider for expansion. Maybe include high price of rail (and trains themselves)? Mark83 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
	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 I think we're bordering on, or slightly over, the line of too many images; the MOS says too many images can be distracting. File:QRNational (Aurizon) WAGR L class LZ3106 and LZ3103 -- Fremantle, February 2015.jpg could go. Doesn;t really convey that much information that the previous freight train picture doesn't deliver the reader? Same for the China high speed rail picture - let's just stick with the Japanese one? After all, this article is about trains, not railways - so who's high speed network was first/biggest etc. isn't that important in this context (i.e. the choice of images). File:Burlington Northern Sante Fe Willmar Railroad Yard (7600839444).jpg is not a great image. I get why we've included it, but it's not doing a good job of showing various types of railroad cars. There's not a ton of photos on Commons that show this idea well, but I've found a few potential alternates: File:Niagara_Falls_Switch_Yard.jpg File:CNRailwayYardHamilton.JPG File:Colton_Yard,_California_(29321100133).jpg File:BNSF_yard_in_Oakland,_April_2018.JPG File:BNSF Railway Classification Yard, South of Galesburg, IL (3).jpg. I particularly like the last one. It's kind of hard to get good photos within railroad yards since they're obviously not open to the public in most cases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Agreed on last one. Different angles to be able to see the different cars, and also bigger variety? Mark83 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC) File:Narrow gauge railroad - Geriatriezentrum Lainz 22.jpg I don't know, but I'm guessing narrow guage is quite niche in terms of utilisation/passengers carried. Therefore is this picture not over-promotion of a niche topic? I'd say no - a number of countries use narrow or broad gauge networks significantly, including India, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand. To have one photo in the body isn't an overrepresentation, I'd say (plus one in the lead, of the New Zealand diesel locomotives). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC) File:Shenzhen Guangzhou high speed train new rolling stock China (37116926035).jpg Resolution on this is poor. Wouldn't pass this for a hypothetical FA review. Ironically enough, that was added to replace an ever lower quality photo of a train interior in Finland. Thoughts on File:JR Hokkaido night train express"Hamanasu"Unreserved seat.JPG File:Amfleet Interior 2019.jpg File:Inside Via Rail, 2017 (20170814 165715).jpg as potential replacements? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC) File:Claude Monet - Arrival of the Normandy Train, Gare Saint-Lazare - Google Art Project.jpg - Consider placement. Would be better further down where cultural impact is mentioned. Just noticed that this article does have a warning header when editing. This article is at high risk for accruing too many images. Please prioritize recognized high-quality images with a strong connection to the body text, and remove others. Avoid having many similar images and sandwiched images... - worth considering. Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
	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)

GA Reassessment

Train

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Does not meet criteria 2 and 4, as outlined by The ed17. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I am seriously surprised that this article passed GA review. It has two major issues. First, the article is frequently far too vague, just saying that things exist without providing any further information on them or even naming examples. Second, the article has a severe bias towards the US. This goes far beyond the examples for things nearly always being American - very frequently the article presents US-specific information as though it applied worldwide. I can go through the article point by point with my criticisms if necessary. Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe this GAR was made in bad faith by someone who has went on a one-against-many crusade on articles such as Talk:Monorail and Talk:California genocide. FWIW, Trainsandotherthings has discussed about this offwiki, but I feel like I need to point this out. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely no personal vendetta against you, Trainsandotherthings, or anyone involved with the article. I would also point out that neither Monorail or California genocide were cases where I was the only one arguing a specific point.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I checked parts of this article against the sources given and it's really rough. You can see my specific notes in the template fields I added. Overall, I found multiple instances of article info not being covered by the source given, along with instances of sources with limited scopes (e.g. a 2002 newspaper article talking about a single US rail line's potential to reduce highway congestion, or a source about electric rail specifically in Chinese mines) being used to support a sentence that speaks to the entire world. As far as I can tell, these problems extend through much of the article.

Looking at the open talk page discussion, I'm gathering that there is some friction between the editors involved. I have no knowledge of that, but regardless of the motivation or intent behind the GAR this article has some significant issues that need to be addressed. cc Trainsandotherthings LilianaUwU Epicgenius Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @The ed17. From what I can see, I think the crux of the issue is the use of primary sources, as well as sources that fail verification. As explained on the talk page, I did not think it was necessary to include details of global variations in a WP:SUMSTYLE-type article (e.g. for the sentence "...equipped with cabs, also known as driving compartments, where a train driver controls the train's operation", we don't really need to give every possible name for a cab).

However - and with apologies to TAOT, who certainly put a lot of effort into this article two years ago - you are definitely right that we shouldn't make generalizations from sources that talk about specific projects. The failed-verification issues do need to be addressed as well; when I made my earlier comment, I was unaware just how many statements failed verification. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I maintain that the globalize tag was inappropriate, and I take issue with certain things you've brought up (calling 430 kph vs. 431 kph "failed verification" is absurd, it's rounding). However, I must admit there are issues with the article, a product of how inexperienced I was when I did the rewrite. I continue to dispute the claim that the entire article needs to be rewritten. It is never my goal to create subpar work or articles, and I can't say I'm proud of the current state of the article, though it is massively improved compared to what came before it. I will note that the issues brought up by The ed17 by and large are not directly related to what prompted Eldomtom2 to open the GAR.

When I rewrote the article in 2021, I had far more free time than I do now. I will try and address some points, but I cannot guarantee this will happen in a timely manner, and I am also concerned that reliable sources will be rejected for spurious reasons. For instance, I object strongly to the idea that Railway Age is somehow less reliable just because it isn't a scientific journal. It is easy to poke holes in sourcing; finding better sourcing is a much more significant task, and even the article as you see it now required over a dozen hours of research on my part. I must also stress that this should not be held to FAC standards, which I believe in some instances The ed17 has done. There has been no discussion here of which GA criteria the article does not meet, which needs to happen. That way this does not become FAC-lite, and there is a clear route to maintaining GA status. Otherwise, this will become an impossible task. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

On a very quick look, GA criteria that could be worked on include: MOS:OVERSECTION (Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings.); parts of WP:LEAD (I note several sentences which contain facts not cited in the body, while some body sections which are fairly heavily weighted are not mentioned in the lead); and, if the above is correct, criterion 4, which requires NPOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: To be clear, the major problem I found in the article is its text-source integrity: the numerous places where the information in the article is not backed up by the citation it's tied to. That's fundamental WP:V. I expect that most of the current text can be kept, and that sources can be found to back up the info. I have not said that the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten, I have not disputed the reliability of Railway Age (I removed one source to it only because the other source covered the sentence better), and I don't expect FAC-level sourcing (which is why I'm not bothered e.g. about the frequent use of Ultimate Train, a solid general overview of the topic that I got as a kid and am pretty sure I still have in a box somewhere!). I definitely understand that it's easier to "poke holes in sourcing" than do the actual research, but that doesn't diminish these serious concerns. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings - "I will note that the issues brought up by The ed17 by and large are not directly related to what prompted Eldomtom2 to open the GAR." - What precisely do you think the issues that caused me to open the GAR are? If it helps, I can produce a list of NPOV violations in the article.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Eldomtom2: I'm sure there's some overlap, but it was also my interpretation that they were mostly separate. This is a GAR, so it would indeed help if you could put together a list that we could assess. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a list of some of the issues the article has that I could find from a quick scan. This is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination.

"Since the 1970s, governments, environmentalists, and train advocates have promoted increased use of trains due to their greater fuel efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to other modes of land transport." - not keen on this sentence because it implies that the 1970s onwards saw a sudden surge of support for rail transport, which isn't the case

"Another German inventor, Rudolf Diesel, constructed the first diesel engine in the 1890s, though the potential of his invention to power trains was not realized until decades later" - the first diesel locomotives were built in the early 1910s, so this phrasing is misleading

"Intermodal freight trains, carrying double-stack shipping containers, have since the 1970s generated significant business for railroads and gained market share from trucks." - Significant US bias. Double-stack freight trains are nearly exclusive to America and India and intermodal freight trains do not require the use of double-stacked containers

"Increased use of commuter rail has also been promoted as a means of fighting traffic congestion on highways in urban areas" - I'm fairly certain a lot of people who support increased use of commuter rail want to reduce the usage of cars even when there isn't much congestion

"Trains can be sorted into types based on whether they haul passengers or freight (though mixed trains which haul both exist), by their weight (heavy rail for regular trains, light rail for lighter rapid transit systems), by their speed, and by what form of track they use. Conventional trains operate on two rails, but several other types of track systems are also in use around the world." -this entire paragraph is just a mess that says pretty much nothing

"The railway terminology that is used to describe a train varies between countries. The two primary systems of terminology are International Union of Railways terms in much of the world, and Association of American Railroads terms in North America." - as noted this failed verification, and has obvious issues on its face - what terms are used in East Asia, for instance?

"Early trains could only be stopped by manually applied hand brakes, requiring workers to ride on top of the cars and apply the brakes when the train went downhill" - First, this is inaccurate - steam trains can also be stopped by going into reverse and thus making steam push against the pistons and slow them down. Second, this is another example of severe US bias - many countries had different methods of controlling unbraked trains that did not involve workers riding on the top of the train and applying the handbrakes.

"Train vehicles are linked to one another by various systems of coupling. In much of Europe, India, and South America, trains primarily use buffers and chain couplers. In the rest of the world, Janney couplers are the most popular, with a few local variations persisting (such as Wilson couplers in the former Soviet Union).[31]" - More US bias. It would be better if the article didn't mention Janney couplers at all and just talked about automatic couplers generally.

"but the predominant braking system for trains globally is air brakes, invented in 1869 by George Westinghouse.[failed verification] Air brakes are applied at once to the entire train using air hoses.[32]" - no mention of vacuum brakes, which while never as widespread as air brakes were common enough to deserve a mention

"To prevent collisions or other accidents, trains are often scheduled, and almost always are under the control of train dispatchers.[38] Historically, trains operated based on timetables; most trains (including nearly all passenger trains), continue to operate based on fixed schedules, though freight trains may instead run on an as-needed basis, or when enough freight cars are available to justify running a train.[39]" - only citations are US sources and thus reflects a US idea of freight trains

"Train drivers, also known as engineers, are responsible for operating trains.[43] Conductors are in charge of trains and their cargo, and help passengers on passenger trains.[43] Brakeman, also known as trainmen, were historically responsible for manually applying brakes, though the term is used today to refer to crew members who perform tasks such as operating switches, coupling and uncoupling train cars, and setting handbrakes on equipment.[43] Steam locomotives require a fireman who is responsible for fueling and regulating the locomotive's fire and boiler.[43] On passenger trains, other crew members assist passengers, such as chefs to prepare food, and service attendants to provide food and drinks to passengers. Other passenger train specific duties include passenger car attendants, who assist passengers with boarding and alighting from trains, answer questions, and keep train cars clean, and sleeping car attendants, who perform similar duties in sleeping cars.[43]" - this entire paragraph uses a single US source and is therefore heavily US-biased - for starters, many trains do not have conductors and thus the driver/engieer is "in charge" of the train.

"Trains also need to fit within the loading gauge profile to avoid fouling bridges and lineside infrastructure with this being a potential limiting factor on loads such as intermodal container types that may be carried." - doesn't explicitly explain what loading gauge is

"Modern trains have a very good safety record overall, comparable with air travel.[49]" - source only discusses US

"The vast majority of train-related fatalities, over 90 percent, are due to trespassing on railroad tracks, or collisions with road vehicles at level crossings.[52] Organizations such as Operation Lifesaver have been formed to improve safety awareness at railroad crossings, and governments have also launched ad campaigns. Trains cannot stop quickly when at speed; even an emergency brake application may still require more than a mile of stopping distance. As such, emphasis is on educating motorists to yield to trains at crossings and avoid trespassing.[53]" - First, the figure given for the majority of train fatalities being trespass-related is a US one and thus the figure only applies to the US. Second, this gives the false impression that educational campaigns are the only way to reduce crossing fatalities and does not give any attention to methods such as grade separation

"Diesel locomotives are powered with a diesel engine, which generates electricity to drive traction motors. This is known as a diesel–electric transmission, and is used on almost all diesels" - no mention of other transmissions - diesel-mechanical and diesel-hydraulic transmissions are common enough to deserve a mention

"Train cars, also known as wagons, are unpowered rail vehicles which are typically pulled by locomotives. Many different types exist, specialized to handle various types of cargo. Some common types include boxcars (also known as covered goods wagons) that carry a wide variety of cargo, flatcars (also known as flat wagons) which have flat tops to hold cargo, hopper cars which carry bulk commodities, and tank cars which carry liquids and gases. Examples of more specialized types of train cars include bottle cars which hold molten steel,[63] Schnabel cars which handle very heavy loads, and refrigerator cars which carry perishable goods.[64][65]" - for some reason the "Train car" section solely talks about freight cars

"Long distance passenger trains travel over hundreds or even thousands of miles between cities. The longest passenger train service in the world is Russia's Trans-Siberian Railway between Moscow and Vladivostok, a distance of 9,289 kilometers (5,772 mi).[67] In general, long distance trains may take days to complete their journeys, and stop at dozens of stations along their routes. For many rural communities, they are the only form of public transportation available.[68] Short distance or regional passenger trains have travel times measured in hours or even minutes, as opposed to days. They run more frequently than long distance trains, and are often used by commuters. Short distance passenger trains specifically designed for commuters are known as commuter rail.[69]" - The article completely ignores the existence of trains that cover long distances but have travel times measured in hours - i.e. what is generally called "intercity" rail

""Metro" may also refer to rapid transit that operates at ground level." - this is just a nonsense sentence. The article should just say that "metro" and "rapid transit" mean pretty much the same thing

"Light rail is a catchall term for a variety of systems, which may include characteristics of trams, passenger trains, and rapid transit systems." - another example of the article being so vague as to say absolutely nothing

"Longer freight trains typically operate between classification yards, while local trains provide freight service between yards and individual loading and unloading points along railroad lines.[87]" - US centric again - in some countries unit trains are the sole type of freight train operating--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It has become clear that I will never be able to meet your expectations for the article. Some of your objections are valid, but I object to many. Your objection to correctly pointing out that janney couplers are the most common worldwide is a clear example of reverse POV pushing, since you want the coupler type used in the majority of the world to be removed from the article entirely. I like how you also implicitly accuse The ed17 of bias considering he just rewrote that sentence yesterday. Nonetheless, it has become apparent that my editing skills are insufficient to meet the expectations of other editors and that it was a folly of me to even try and improve this article. I shouldn't have bothered. So go ahead, delist it, tear up everything I wrote. I don't care anymore. I will be reevaluating and reducing my involvement with much of the project, because quite frankly it isn't enjoyable anymore. I'm sure it will be another 20 years before this article reaches GA, because it is far easier to destroy than to create, and this is coming from a card-carrying deletionist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to mentioning the Janney coupler - suggesting the mention of it could be removed was just a suggestion. What I object to is the article pretending that janney/buffer-and-chain couplers are the only two types of couplers to see widespread usage. Also, "I like how you also implicitly accuse The ed17 of bias considering he just rewrote that sentence yesterday" - I was completely unaware that the sentence was recently rewritten, and furthermore I have absolutely no idea why the fact it was recently rewritten is relevant.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The original GA Review

Eldomtom2 was good enough to notify me of this GAR and furthermore I am aware of WP:AGF and fully support this guideline. Nevertheless, I am sure everyone will understand that I feel the need to make a comment on the quality of the review I conducted. Even on a cursory level I would argue that it can easily be seen that I interrogated and analysed the article in a high level of detail in comparison to some Good Article Reviews which are almost nodded through. Secondly, some of the issues being discussed above were discussed as part of that review; for example the issue of it being US-centric. On that point - some of the examples above are not a reason for removing GA status. For example "First, the figure given for the majority of train fatalities being trespass-related is a US one and thus the figure only applies to the US" is a bit disigenious; would a reference and example from another part of the world be preferable? Of course. But that doesn't negate the data completely and it gives an indication that is useful for the topic of the paragraph.

For some of the comments above, I would draw your attention to criteria 3b which states that the article must "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Some of the comments (for me as a non-expert) are getting into minutiae on the subject. But I am not interested in getting into a debate on that as I have admitted that I am not an expert on the subject.

Having said all that, I will of course check back in on the final result of this discussion and take whatever learnings I can for GA reviews. Mark83 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"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.

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)