Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Trains and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:RAILWT:RAIL WT:RR WT:TRAINSWT:TRAINS WT:TWPWT:TWP

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

Trains 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

WikiProject Trains was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 September 2010.

	v t e TWP discussion archives:
	2004 2005 January–June 2006 March–September 2006 June–December 2006 December 2006–March 2007 March–August 2007 August–October 2007 October 2007–January 2008 January–May 2008 May–September 2008 September–December 2008 January–July 2009 August–December 2009 January–August 2010 August–November 2010 December 2010–March 2011 April–May 2011 June–December 2011 January–August 2012 September–December 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly any that aren't individually notable should go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Batch deletion still requires each article to be considered on its merits or lack thereof. Batch nomination works best for groups that are obviously similar in quality. The procedure will get bogged down if there are some keeps, some deletes and some borderlines in the batch. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion First, thanks for taking the time to embark on this. Can I suggest that you be bold and make a start. If you feel batches would be easier, go for three or four at a time taking note of the views above and keeping the criteria for each batch as tight as possible. Then see how it goes after the first one or two batches.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Deal on a case-by-case basis: Plenty of trains have a significant history, heritage, fanfare and coverage associated with them. Just because some of them may be unnamed is not a valid reason for batch deletion. Conversely, some named services might not be notable enough too. Either way, they should be dealt on a case-by-case basis, and where 3 or 4 services are somehow related to each other, then only use batches only for those related articles. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: No, I oppose giving carte blanche for a pig in a poke. The category of articles on Indian train services seems a large tree of over a thousand articles to be throwing vague allegations against and asking for blanket permission to just wipe out at whim without stating any specific tests or methods, nor showing any evidence or prior discussions or even specific WP guidance issues justifying this level of godlike power. Nuking a whole set of categories with a couple thousand articles and comprising the work of what seems tens of thousands of editors in perhaps a hundred thousand edits seems just horribly destructive and needing more than a 40-word request to get. It also seems to want more power than WP:AfD allows for even individual article deletions, or even that WP admins get to play with. Look, if there seems widespread issues, respect that others have apparently felt otherwise and ping a number of those thousands of editors and start a discussion -- do not open with a RFC asking for godlike power. Perhaps a discussion will evolve a consensus on criteria to keep or delete, perhaps there would be merger or elimination of stubs, or perhaps there would emerge the process and criteria on how to WP:NUKE a category. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support batch deletion of all articles that describe WP:ROTM services, with "run-of-the-mill" defined as "train does not even have its own name". The fact that the railroad did not bother even to name the train, clearly shows its non-notability IMHO. In the articles we are discussing here this fact is usually hidden behind a made-up name like "[TERMINAL A] - [TERMINAL B] Express". These names are WP:OR and cannot be found in any sources that are not derived from the Wikipedia itself, due to that WP:V is impossible. I have tried to verify the data listed in the articles for many of the trains, and practically always came up short. I have chosen a truly randomly selected by me service Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express as an illustration. There are no sources, but an abundance of details that can be either true or bogus, and a made-up article name makes it impossible to find which is the case here (Google search yields just the Wikipedia mirrors). At least for this type of articles, an individual deliberation is likely to become a group waste of time (I did burn few hours of my life on some of these articles, never finding any supporting sources, all were eventually deleted). I have no issues with going in limited, but sizable batches (say, 50 per week), so that an opportunity of fixing some of articles is provided. Smaller batches are problematic, as they require editors to engage way too often. --Викидим (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is absolutely untrue. In India, trains are usually either named when introduced, or never named at all. It is absurd to assume that all trains have a predetermined notability at the time of introduction. Furthermore, India has distinct naming scheme compared to other countries: Vande Bharat, Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto form the premium class of trains, with individual trains identified by source or destination or both. They are not named individually, yet many of them are notable in their own right (e.g., Howrah Rajdhani). Whereas non-premium trains are the ones which are named (e.g., Vivek Express), or which may only be identified by s/d/both (e.g., Darjeeling Mail). In either of the three cases you would find plenty of trains that are indeed notable, or not notable. You can't classify an entire class as non-notable. That would be absurd. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) I am not an expert in the India train system, thus IMHO in my statement. (2) I proposed to consider the trains with "names" invented here in Wikipedia as non-notable. Your examples are of a different kind: Howrah Rajdhani and Darjeeling Mail both apparently have names that are well known. (3) This is not the case with my example: nobody apparently calls any train service in India by the name "Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express". This is the type of article I have described (and it looks like there are hundreds of articles like my example). Викидим (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is in fact an existing train service and the name is not invented here. And thus, you do agree that a blanket catch-all approach is bad policy. I'm not prohibiting any and all deletions of train articles, I'm only saying that bulk nominations are massively disruptive. If you think some train is not notable bring it to AfD on a case-by-case basis, and bulk nominations may only be used when two or more subjects have an extremely strong affinity to each other. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 01:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I double-checked, and the only place outside of Wikipedia where the words "Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express" are used is the site "indiantrain.in". I do not know what the status of this site is (does not look to be official or peer-reviewed), and I still think that "Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express" is an English term coined here and not used in the real world. Викидим (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The train had existed, but appears to have been cancelled since 2015 or 2016. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that without a name I am unable to verify any statement about a particular train. For example, when I read the Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express (an example above), the train 22913 / 22914 was going between Mumbai Central and New Delhi and was discontinued in 2015. If I trust Bandra Terminus–Saharsa Humsafar Express, the train with the same number(s) 22913 / 22914 is still going between Bandra Terminus and Saharsa Junction. Which one I (and any other reader) is supposed to believe? This is the problem that arises when an object is so WP:ROTM that is does not even have its own name (and train numbers are clearly being reused). Викидим (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not opposed the deletion of articles that fail Notability. I'm only opposing bulk nominations which is in question here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Викидим: Are Indian train service numbers necessarily unique? They're not in the UK. For instance, of the hundreds of trains running in the UK today (1 June 2025), I find that the headcode number 2V47 has been assigned to all of these:

  • 15:00 Banbury to Oxford
  • 16:00 Welwyn Garden City to London Kings Cross
  • 16:21 Ilkley to Leeds
  • 17:20 London Waterloo to Kingston
  • 17:25 Upminster to Romford

  The main requirements for duplication of headcodes are that there cannot be an area (station or group of stations controlled by the same signal box) served by both of the two trains, or if there is, at least twelve hours must elapse between them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no clue about uniqueness of train numbers, sorry. My point is that absent a commonly accepted unique name there is no easy way to do any WP:V, much less verify the WP:N. The notable train services IMHO all have some names, whether official or colloquial, that can be used as an article title (cf. Orient Express). Absence of such name points to a classical WP:ROTM situation: for example, all houses on any street of any major city have numbers and we can potentially dig out a lot of paperwork about each one of them, but this does not make them encyclopedically notable. If something (say, a small hill) doesn't even have a name, we do not write an article about it ("Hill with coordinates ..."), why should an exception be made for train services? Викидим (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In India, train numbers are unique. A train with the same number will make the journey with the same set of stations enroute, and the same exact schedule (though delays are common) on one or more days of the week. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you then explain the situation with Mumbai Central–New Delhi AC Suvidha Special Express and Bandra Terminus–Saharsa Humsafar Express, as discussed above? These two share the 22913/22914 numbers. Викидим (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The latter was introduced after the former ceased its service. For trains that no longer exist, it is common practice to reassign their train numbers to newer trains. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. The trains in question do not have any solid identifier, then. Викидим (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean identifiers are often reused when the old thing being identified ceases to exist. Take IATA code BKK for example, which was reassigned from Don Mueang International Airport to Suvarnabhumi Airport. But, yeah in this case the train is non-notable and may be deleted. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rostokino (Little Ring of the Moscow Railway) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Rail yards are not inherently notable. WP:TNT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that Fatih railway station be moved to Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi-Fatih railway station, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene V. Debs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that GWR Cathedral Class be renamed and moved to GWR proposed Hawksworth Pacific locomotive.

Comments are welcome. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rock Island Line#Requested move 30 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of unsourced stubs of Japanese train stations in Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2011 and Category:Articles lacking sources from November 2011. Can we rescue a few? Merge a few? Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the Japanese Wikipedia will have sourcing; I will take a look at a few when I have time Jumpytoo Talk 17:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drafting an article about Japanese Pacific locomotives built for Thailand. The problem is that I don't know what to make the title of the article based on the guidance of the style advice. The Royal State Railways of Siam (RSR) did use letter classification, but that extended only to a limited number of locomotives and only extended to "E". The locomotives I am writing about definitely did NOT use this locomotive classification system, and I can only go off the running numbers, which are 283-92 and 821-50. The locomotives have been called the "Cx50" as in the Thai article, but I have been told that this is fanon, in addition to the article having dubious sourcing and reliability (original research). Do I go off the running numbers and title the article "RSR 283-92 and 821-50?" Or is there another way to title the article? Yugystudios (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does the source refer to them? Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams by Ramaer on p. 83 refer to them as "RSR Nos 283-292." Diagrams by Ramaer on p. 93 refer to them as "RSR Nos 821-) 849-850 (oil burning)", but for the sake of consistency, I will refer to them as "RSR Nos 821-850." But Ramaer on the same page refer to them as "RSR numbers 821-50." It ha also been referred to as RSR series 283-92 on a diagram at p. 94. Let me know if you need any more examples. Yugystudios (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive title states Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.. It feels like there isn't a single set name for these locomotives so a descriptive title is the way to go. Based on the principles listed in the criteria section of the article titles policy my suggestion would be "RSR locomotives 283–292 and 821–850" with redirects from variations (e.g. without "locomotives", or "nos", "numbers", "series", etc instead). That is no more than a suggestion though, others may have a better idea. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, the guidelines provided are useful. Thank you for your assistance, it is much appreciated. Yugystudios (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I would amplify from the suggestion above is that you use full numbers in the range naming, e.g 283–292 not 283–92. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you! Yugystudios (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yugystudios, are you going by an older version of the Thai article? Revisions in 2024 have removed all mentions of the CX50 name. In any case, "RSR locomotives 283–292 and 821–850" isn't optimal as a title as it utterly fails the WP:recognizability criterion (no one but the most extreme enthusiast will recognise the topic from the numbers). And it's not accurate either since the article also includes the five locomotives used by Jordan. Thai sources most consistently just refer to them as "Pacific steam locomotives", and this is reflected in the local English-language sources based on them.[2][3][4] If we're going to use a descriptive title, I think it would make more sense for it to be some variation of "Japanese Pacific locomotives built for Thailand", as worded in your opening statement. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insight.

Firstly, I was going off another user's draft last updated on 2023-10-23, which is most likely an older version. The "Cx50" name may have been recognised as "fanon" and promptly removed, but I am informed the entire article still has questionable reliability, to the extent it cannot be allowed on EN WP, some Thai rail enthusiasts told me as of recent. Regarding the title, based on your recommendations, I think the title would be "RSR Japanese Pacific locomotives" or something, since only rail enthusiasts with reliable information would know their running numbers, like you said.

Reply back with any concerns/questions. Thanks! Yugystudios (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ramaer, Roel (2009). The Railways of Thailand (2 ed.). Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus. ISBN 978-974-480-151-7. Yugystudios (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maroochydore railway line#Requested move 2 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:GWR Cathedral Class#Requested move 5 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]