This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Railways This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles This page is supported by WikiProject Indian railways. Trains: in India Trains Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Associated projects or task forces: /  This page is supported by WikiProject Indian railways.

Hello everyone,

I am nominationg to delete Indore–Ajmer Link Express, Indore–Bandra Express, Indore–Surat Express, Rajendra Nagar Patna – Indore Express, Indore–Jaipur Express via Ajmer because they are a reglar trains.

Ujjain - Bhopal passenger, Bhopal–Pratapgarh Express, Indore–Jabalpur Intercity Express, Jabalpur – Indore Overnight Express,Indore–Delhi Sarai Rohilla Express. These pages already exsist. Thank you.

Jaywardhan (talk) 20:20, July 14, 2017 (IST)

Hello fellow editors ! I have a doubt regarding inclusion of individual articles on normal passenger trains (which are ~ 15,000 in India). For example articles like Indore–Ajmer_Link_Express, Rajendra_Nagar_Patna–Indore_Express. These both examples are completely normal trains, which clear fails WP:GNG and their is no other subject specific guidelines for trains (that I am able to find). Most of these articles (that I have gone through) are unsourced or poorly sourced stubs. I believe that these articles should not be included on English Wikipedia, this may also be a case of WP:NOTTRAVEL. Can someone provide their views about it and what is the general consensus regarding it ? Thanks. Zoodino (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zoodino. We don't get a lot of visitors here! Unfortunately I won't be able to respond fully right now as I'm about to go to sleep (IST). I would try to answer that question in my full capacity tomorrow. Until then, I would suggest you to have a look at this discussion that took place over here over a decade ago. Warm regards, Field Marshal (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Field Marshal Aryan: Thanks for guiding me to the archived discussion. But the discussion seems to be inadequate. The number of participants are very less. The statements such as "I feel each named train is notable just like people who say each village is notable", seems to be the editor's personal opinion without any backing from any of Wikipedia's notability policy. Their is also no clear result of the discussion.

Can we have a general discussion again (here only, just inputs from other editors) on the topic (if possible), so we can reach a general consensus whether such articles should be created or not. Zoodino (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoodino: Yep. The old discussion was pretty much inconclusive. We surely can, and seeing the huge mess this subject is, must have a discussion, even though not many are active here. I am pinging a few editors I know who can help (Vatsmaxed, ArnabSaha, Area 51 Machan, User:Naveenpf.

Some the named trains should stay like Lucknow Mail or the Gujarat Mail or even the legendary Deccan Queen while the slower passengers and MEMUs, as you said, are certainly not notable at all. The category that is the most problematic is Slow and fast passenger trains in India whereas some (actually, a lot) cleanup will be needed in Express trains in India. I will wait for more opinions now. Pinging the active editors of the old discussion: Logicwiki, Ekabhishek. To the people I pinged, sorry for disturbing: You have no obligation to participate if you are not willing. Thanks, Field Marshal (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Field Marshal Aryan: Thanks for being interested in the discussion and pinging other editors. As mentioned already by you, these stub articles seems to be mess. Cleaning up these articles will surely improve the project quality and unnecessary backlog. Waiting for more opinions. Zoodino (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoodino, I agree. Articles like these aren't required. Also we need to asses them individually. ❯❯❯   S A H A 07:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can develop an agreed standard for individual trains beyond the GNG. In Europe and the Americas named passenger trains generally meet that standard with ease, but we don't have articles on unnamed services between cities. I'm not familiar with sources for Indian railways so I can't speak to what the coverage looks like. Mackensen (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be restored back to it's original name and data.It is a dedicated article of this 2 series narrow gauge diesel locomotives of Indian railways because there are not much information to make dedicated article of this 2 series locomotives. That is why this 2 series locomotives data have been combined together to make one article. There is no need of making article of narrow gauge locomotives of India. Narrow gauge locomotives are already added in 2 articles Locomotives of India and List of diesel locomotives of India. Steam and battery power locomotives of Indian railways will added in 2 separate articles. I think you will understood my point and restored the article back to its original name and data.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is not sufficient information available to create a dedicated articles of each of this "ZDM and NDM" locomotives. But that could not be reason for creating a special article for these 2 only. Even less information is available for narrow gauge battery and even for narrow gauge steam not much info is available, say for eg of BLR (Barsi light railways) locos. Regarding the "There is no need of making article of narrow gauge locomotives of India", the same can be said for ZDM and NDM too, they could be a part of Locomotives of India and List of diesel locomotives of India too, which they already are. Strictly speaking, we should have had, only Locomotives of India article and the individual loco articles. But in recent past, intermediate articles, such as List of diesel locomotives of India and List of electric locomotives of India etc were created. Considering all these, I preferred to rename the article to current as kind of compromise. Hope you understand, if you still dis-agree, then you can always continue this discussion on wikiproject talk page, let consensus decide over there. Vatsmaxed (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that you should discuss about it first before you move this page. No, it is not same because there is no dedicated article for this two series locomotives. It's better to restore the page back to its original name because it is a dedicated article of that 2 series narrow gauge diesel locomotives of Indian railway. Battery power and steam power locomotives of Indian railway should have separate articles like List of diesel locomotives of India and List of electric locomotives of India. If you want you can create separate article for narrow gauge battery and steam locomotives of India but restore the original article. I think its better if you should restore the article back to it's original structure and open a discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian railways and based on the discussion there you should change the name.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suvadeep Saha56, I agree with Vatsmaxed here. The previous title would not have been able to accommodate the battery and steam based narrow gauge locomotives which don't have enough data to be warranted a separate article. The current title seems apt as we are not limited to two locomotive classes which anyways fall under the current title category. Also, yea, the discussion should be shifted to WikiProject Indian railways for greater visibility. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the discussion here from my talk page. Better this stays here so it is easier to find in future. Vatsmaxed (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, difference between section type and main line type articles is pretty clear. Are there any differences between main line type articles and line type articles. Should they be standardized into one type? → Timbaaa_talk 09:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some of the recent editors here:@ArnabSaha, Vatsmaxed, Field Marshal, and Zoodino: → Timbaaa _talk 02:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timbaaa, line type articles consist of mainlines and branch lines. now, it depends on various thing and article to article, whether standardisation is required or not. I will put my final opinion after checking some more articles. ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in late as I just saw this today. Commenting on this as I usually tend to work on the route maps of IR (mostly focusing eastern part as of now) and recently have began focusing on their associated articles. Here are some rules that I kinda grasped intuitively when I first started and now I usually follow when making and creating these articles:

• 1.) If it is a main line, the suffix should be main line. Example: Howrah–Delhi main line / Ahmedabad–Mumbai main line etc
• 2.) If it is a chord line, the suffix should be chord or chord line. Example: Grand Chord / Rewari–Phulera chord line etc
• 3.) If it is a major branch line connecting major junction points in between, the suffix should be line. Example: Sealdah–Ranaghat–Gede line, Barkakana–Son Nagar line etc
• 4.) If it is a minor branch line, usually with no major junction points in between, the suffix should be branch line. Example: Andal–Sainthia branch line,
• 5.) If it is a loop line, the suffix should be loop or loop line. Example: Sahibganj Loop, Andal–Sitarampur loop line, etc
• 6.) If it is a set of lines with no clear distinction of which line is the main/major line or not, the suffix should be section. Example: Sealdah South section, Sealdah Main and North section, etc
• 7.) If it is a section of a major line/main line that is required to be defined separately due to size, the suffix should be section. Example: Asansol–Patna section, Kazipet–Vijayawada section

Hope this helps. I strongly believe we should have a documented standard somewhere in Wikipedia about line articles and routemaps related to Indian railways, so please do include me in discussions related to these. I have created some standards of my own while designing routemaps and line articles (my contrib page is here btw :)) which I can put up for discussion in a separate section if you guys are willing to discuss it. Tagging @Chandan Guha: and @Feroze Ahmad 2: as they are frequent and experienced contributors. Regards, GoldenDragon2293Return (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some category sorting related to this project. Two observations; suggestions needed:

1. Related to Category:Indian Railway A1 Category Stations

   Categorisation changed in 2017. At the time there were 75^[1] railway stations in 2017 having A1 rank. Should all 75 stations be added or should this category be deleted?

   Should a new category be created for NSG1 stations? (for example ranking is given in this ref^[2])

2. Related to Category:Railway stations in India by state or union territory

   Apart from the Category:Railway stations in West Bengal, all other states generally have stations only linking to their district. Does it make sense to remove Category:Railway stations in West Bengal from all the stations of West Bengal, leaving only district-wise categorisation? (Junction categorisation where applicable).

FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]