Talk:Glossary of rail transport terms/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

412?

An anonymous user added this one today, but the text is a verbatim copy from [1]. I'm tempted to take it out because it's a direct copy and it doesn't really give the significance of the term. Why is 412 such a special number to Australian railfans? slambo 13:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit?

Anyone want to weigh in on whether [2] is legit? Changing acronym to abbreviation is wrong, but how about the more substantial changes? --SPUI (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

COFC and TOFC are acronyms, especially since I hear some modelers and rail workers in my area pronounce them as "coffsee" and "toffsee". On the other edits, they seem ok to me, but I'm more familiar with US practice than UK practice. slambo 15:43, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Slang terms

I'm wondering what others think about slang terms like Foamer and Gandy Dancer; do they belong on this list or would it be a good idea to start a new Railroad slang article for those? I'm asking as the person who added both of those terms to this list. My thoughts on the matter are that there are probably as many railroading slang terms as technical terms, and it might be a good idea in the interest of keeping article size managable to divide them into two separate articles. What does everyone else think? Kaibabsquirrel 4 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

The problem with that is that sometimes the slang becomes the official term. FRED, for example, is one that is often used by professional railroaders. Hotbox also started out as a slang term for an overheated journal box, but now it's the official term (which is why we have hotbox detectors now). I guess I'm more in favor of keeping them all in one list. The size of the definitions that we currently use is small enough that all of the vocabulary can be included. slambo July 4, 2005 20:00 (UTC)
Okay that makes sense. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on this and you're right about there being a lot of overlap. Kaibabsquirrel 5 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

coal coke

I did not see coke (coal coke) on this list anywhere. Am I missing it?

Automotive design terminology

Automotive design terminology is up for deletion, if that goes, this should probably be deleted too. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automotive design terminology. Kappa 17:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that one earlier today. It seems the deletionists are out in force this month. Slambo (Speak) 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Generic term for ATO/ATP/AWS/ETCS/...

I missed a generic article about this topic, so I created one: Automatic train protection system. However my native language is not english, so please tell me if that title makes sense. --Kabelleger 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Add Through routed defintion

Proposing to add 'Through routed' definition and merge the 'Through routed' article (one sentence long) into the 'T' section of this article. --Zer_T 02:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone else can come up with more to add to that article, it sounds reasonable enough to me. Slambo (Speak) 11:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems perfectly reasonable to merge it into this. Pgengler 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why not. It really should be there. Tanarri Fujitsu 09:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I've gone ahead and merged it in. ~ LrdChaos 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "fouling" should be added to the dictionary. It's commonly used and rarely explained.

Here comes the creepy railfan linguist

Hi everybody, this page is awesome. But the regional labels are a tad confusing. You say, U.S. = originated in America and UK = originated in UK—but it's not where it's at. These tags seem to denote usage rather than origin—and that would make actually more sense. Only when we are sure that a particular term is Am.- or Brit.-born, that should be appropriately marked as such (e.g. orig. U.S., UK, etc.); for instance, "light engine" was regarded as U.S. but it actually originated in Britain. Other flags are just puzzling, if not totally wrong (e.g. under "Terminal station"). Thoughts? Best, JackLumber 12:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have rarely heard it called a terminal station. In the UK it has always been a terminus and collectively they are termini. If terminal station is the North American preference then what is the problem? Regards, NoelWalley 12:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal :-) that was just an example. Terminal is actually more used than terminus here, but terminus sure is not unknown. Furthermore, both terms originated in Britain (not to mention that site:uk "terminal station" yields 12,500 matches); this aside, the point is that we should distinguish between origin, usage preferences (as in this case), and clear-cut distinctions (e.g. switch vs. points). --JackLumber 12:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, nowt personal intended or received. Can one say? Indeed would one wish to know? did the noun 'terminus' (your example) originate in railway usage in the UK or in the US? Vica versa in the case of 'terminal station'? Could one ever say which was first? All I can say is that (in my extensive experience) terminus and termini are the normal nouns we would use in the UK to describe stations like London Euston and London Waterloo although in the latter case we might add a caveat that there are two through platforms (sometimes, but not always, called Waterloo East) on the line to London Charing Cross, even though both have several through underground station platforms! NoelWalley 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I do have written evidence that both terminus and terminal are British-born. But British usage has come to prefer the former over the latter, that's all. (I guess we're kinda going off on a tangent here. Another example? Why is Mainline listed as U.S.? Don't you have something called West Coast Main Line in Britain?) I just wanted to point out that regional-note-inconsistency thing... --JackLumber 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have started to add Australia teminology to this article because mentioning only UK and US terminolog is to UK/US centric. On the English language edition of wikipedia the sequitur variaties of English are:

Rating class

I had originally put NA because this is a list. Since there's some disagreement, I've now put it at Start class. Please review the quality rating scale and reassess as needed. Slambo (Speak) 11:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary

I did a quick search around the wiki, and don't see any consensus for bulk moving the glossary pages to Wiktionary, so I've removed the tag. Slambo (Speak) 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 12:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Like my last look around in October 2006 (see above), I don't see any consensus to move/delete/merge/whatever this article. Slambo (Speak) 14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Heavyweight

I propose adding the following when I obtain copyright approval:

During the period between about 1910 and the mid nineteen thirties, most passenger cars were built with three axle trucks, concrete floors, and riveted, double walled sides and often weighed 90 - 100 tons or more. This period was known as the standard era of passenger railroad car construction. Beginning in the 1930's, passenger car bodies were constructed entirely of metal, welded, had two axle trucks, and weighed about 45 - 50 tons. Today, these cars are referred to as "lightweight" cars because of their relative light weight as compared to the standard era cars, which are now often often called heavyweights. Heavyweight cars are known for their smooth ride and solid construction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.82.208.152 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 July 2007.

Please specify which countries/which railways this applies to. There were only ever a handful of 6-wheel bogie carriages in the UK, mostly restaurant cars, and all of the above information is completely erroneous from a UK viewpoint. (The terms lightweight/heavyweight have never been applied to British railway coaches, AFAIK, and there must be hundreds of other railways around the world that have never used concrete-floored 6-wheel bogie coaches.
Also, please remember to provide references for this information, especially for the last sentence which is distinctly POV-ish.
EdJogg 09:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Steadily Working on Additions

I've been trying to add as many terms, links, reference images, etc. to the page. I've also been trying to find as many Wiki pages related to railroad terms that are not mentioned on the list. If anyone notices any errors in my work please keep me in line! Or if my persistent editing gets annoying let me know! I'm not trying to dominate the entire terminology project I'm just trying to help out when I can and learn as I go.. --Dp67 | QSO 09:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye out for any mixed terminology - ie UK terms that include US terminology and vice versa - better still, watch out for opportunities to use neutral wording.
A thought - would it be appropriate to use italics to identify terms which are defined elsewhere on the page? I have done this to the UK Jargon page, and I think it helps clarify the definitions.
EdJogg 23:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The Italics idea is a good one.. I may go through and change all of the internal references on my sandbox copy. I finally decided to use a sandbox instead of making changes to a live copy.. lol
There are also a couple of VERY Generic terms I'm thinking of getting rid of. One that comes to mind is Crummy it's just a generic word, anything can be crummy, crummy day, crummy job, etc...etc... Doesn't really fit in with any railroad specific terminology. Anyone else have any problems with removing it? --Dp67 | QSO 03:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with 'crummy'. I think you've got a lot of work ahead of you. I just looked at a couple of letters and found 8-10 entries that had imprecise wording, missed UK equivalents of terms, or other problems. I'm going to have to steer clear of this page for now or I'll never get anything done! EdJogg 07:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep pecking away at it. Not sure how long it will take to sift through everything. For the most part what I am trying to do is find articles that may be linked to the term. I've found several already that do have a proper wiki article, but no link from the term or it's definition. So, if I find ones with no link I add one to the proper article if I can find one for it.
Are there any other formatting or content preference suggestions? Anyone is welcome to throw in their ideas.
--Dp67 | QSO | Sandboxes 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Table format?

I've been working on a table defined version of the terms page. Each section is defined by a table -- I've noticed this helps keep the text and images lined up nice and tight. I'm still working on content and grammar but here's a sample of my idea so far.

Definitions Points of Interest
  • Air brake: railroad brakes which operate using compressed air.
  • Alco: American Locomotive Company - the second largest builder of steam locomotives in the U.S.
  • Alerter: similar to the Dead man's switch other than it does not require the operator's constant interaction. Instead an alarm is sounded at a preset interval in which the operator must respond by pressing a button to reset the alarm and the timer. If the operator does not respond within a preset time the brakes are applied. May also be called a 'Watchdog'.
  • American: locomotive with a 4-4-0 wheel arrangement.
  • Angel Seat or Angel's Perch: (US) A term often used when referring to the second level seats on a Cupola style caboose.
  • Annett's key (UK), Annett key (Aus.): a large key which locks levers or other items of signalling apparatus, serving as a portable form of interlocking. With the key removed from the lock, the lever or apparatus is locked in its position. When the key is turned in the lock, it cannot be removed.
An American class steam locomotive
A Cupola-style caboose. Note the Angel Seat above.

I've included <!--- hidden comments ---> to help people put things in order to keep the proper form. Check out a full working example with both the old and the proposed new format. Drop me a note here or there and let me know what you think. I'm open for comments from everyone so if you think tables idea isn't going to work or if you have a better idea speak up! :) --Dp67 | QSO | Sandboxes 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gets my vote! I wouldn't have thought of doing it this way, but it does look rather good.
Some thoughts:
  • Not sure whether the (vertically) centre-aligned images are right; where there's a lot of text and few pictures, it looks like the right-hand column is empty (as you scroll-down the page, that is).
  • It is important to ensure that all your tables are the same width, and have the same column widths. Therefore you either need to ensure there's at least one pic in each section, or find a way of forcing this manually.
  • Image captions would benefit from the term illustrated being highlighted bold (as I've adjusted above)
  • I've also changed the images above from 'right' to 'center' (sic) to tighten-up the image column. It may be possible to increase the whitespace either side by specifying a fixed column width.
  • Don't forget the italics!
EdJogg 08:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm working on filling up some of that dead space now. One of the advantages Ive found using tables is you can cram in allot more reference images easily and still maintain a uniform text format. I'm now using the same table template with static cell widths for the text cell and the image cell for all the sections so they should fit well on most sections. The sections that are blank or have little content will also line up properly with the rest of the page more-so than with dynamic widths.
Next on the To Do list is do some grammar overhauling, Italics and Highlighting the term illustrated and content research. I really don't think the page header needs work. It gets the job done so unless something comes up with that I'll leave it as is. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandboxes 12:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to photos?

Crazy Idea, hopelessly making more work for myself; but.... I had an idea, There are loads of pictures pertaining to many of the terms but only so many can fit on the page. So.. I was thinking of adding a small camera pic to the definition beside the bullet to let the reader know there is a picture available, just maybe not on the same page. Does anyone know of any such images here in Wiki that I can just tag to?? I'd probably spend ages looking for it with a generic search so I thought I'd ask.. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandboxes 02:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not entirely convinced by this one. Were you intending to link to an article containing a picture, or directly to the image? If the former, there is the problem of maintaining synchronisation: what happens if your destination photo is removed for any reason?
To manage the number of photos present, perhaps you need to concentrate on terms which do not have associated articles? Or else concentrate on terms which are more common, but less obvious in their meaning (provided you have a decent picture to illustrate the term adequately). For example, in your example above, I would suggest that Annett's Key and (perhaps) Angel Seat should be illustrated, but 'American' need not be.
As for the picture, try searching for 'camera icon' in the Image namespace and you'll find Image:Littlecamera.jpg, which looks like this: File:Littlecamera.jpg. I haven't tried looking at Commons, but there may well be more there.
EdJogg 08:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
From Commons (all at '20px'): File:Black and white Crystal128-camera-unmount.svg       
EdJogg 08:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Ta for looking, I found a few myself but after thinking about it.. Major PITA to maintain, as you said images change constantly, and it would be allot of excess code to write. Originally what I planned to do is just link to the picture, but I don't know how to use wiki-code to link to an image yet. All I know now is that when you display an image it's assumed the link is to that image.
Oh well, twas an idea but I'm not going to pursue it now that I've thought about it. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandboxes 09:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Browser problems

The new table breaks my browsers: Firefox (fatally) and Safari (not so serious). I suppose it's my problem, and not the community's! --Old Moonraker 08:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not having problems on my Windoze box, I've tried Exploder, Firefox and K-meleon without event. The closest thing I've got to Mac OS is Fedora I'll have to check it with that when I get the chance. If it is causing problems I'll revert it back because you may not be the only one with problems! It may be causing problems for *nix users as well..
Thanks for the heads up! --Dp67 | QSO | Sandboxes 08:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've tried it on Linux/Firefox and didn't have any problems. But just to make sure nobody else is having problems I've reverted to the old format.. There is still a copy in my Sandbox so if there is someone else running OS X please check if it crashes your browser too. I dunno what's going on with it hopefully I didn't waste my time.. lol
--Dp67 | QSO | Sandboxes 10:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You haven't wasted your time, as the result is very good. It's just there is now a need to resolve why it won't work on some browsers (it's fine on IE6 on Win2K). I suggest you raise a question at the appropriate area of the Village Pump -- there's bound to be someone who can help you there.
NB - there's always the chance that some users have non-default settings, and this can cause occasional browser issues (as with the Routemap icons, from time-to-time).
EdJogg 10:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you expand on non-default settings? I wouldn't want to cause problems for other contributors because of an isolated bug feature that's not common. --Old Moonraker 10:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
'fraid not, but if you look at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template and its archive pages, you'll see reference to such matters. They usually involve CSS style sheets, which I don't know anything about. Again, asking a question at the Village Pump (either WP:VPT or WP:VPA) should allow you to determine the scale of the problem. (At least one of the routemap issues was only present on that user's PC because he had changed the default font size, or something similar). Hope that's of some help to you. EdJogg 11:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Just noted that Dp67 has already raised the question at WP:VPA. No answers yet... EdJogg 11:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No word from the pump, but now that I think of it, Firefox on Mac OS X was a bit riské as I remember.. If the font was too large it really hosed things up if you tried to read anything with a defined format. Of course my Mac was an old hand me down junker with limited memory so that could have been the problem too. Of course I never had it bomb out on me though, it would just slow down to a sloths crawl. That was also 10.3(something) nothing new like 10.4(Good Buddy.. LOL) I don't even know how high the numbers go now. Are they at OS XI yet?
--Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 06:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Checks "About this Mac" as couldn't remember: It's up to 10.4.10 now. I've also checked the Firefox prefs and these are absolutely standard, but as Old Moonraker I do need 14pt font these days.
I appreciate your reversion of the table, but it was generally well received and you shouldn't be doing this because an isolated user can't get it to work properly. --Old Moonraker 07:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know what's happened, but everything's OK now. As before, Dp67's helpful attitude (after all the work put in) is much appreciated. --Old Moonraker 09:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Globalize (too biassed towards North America

I have added this tag as the articel is far too biassed towards North America. The majority of the photographs of US examples, and most of the terms are too. This article needs to be made less USA specific.Canterberry 08:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Over 90% of the content remains the same All that was done was a format cleanup; so why start griping now? --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 09:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Not quite the reaction I was expecting! "Griping"!! If thats what you call a well intended action to try and improve this page, then I shall work on other articles, and keep clear of "your turf"!! Goodness me, one day someone might want to submit this page for a "good article" status, and IHMO one of the obvious "faults" (is that a good word?) of the article is that it is too biassed towards the US of A. The majority of the pictures are of the US of A, and a lot of the terms are too. I guess you folks over the water cannot see the wood for the trees. Canterberry 09:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For goodness sake, both of you, calm down! Canterberry, your original comment was correct, and I think Dp67 over-reacted slightly to this criticism. I can understand this, since the conversion to tabular form will have involved a great deal of work on his part. Your comment was a normal response to a page edit: spotting something that needed improving. However, I think you may have over-reacted to his over-reaction!
For an 'independent' opinion: the article is much better in table form but the content is still seriously lacking in certain quarters, primarilly because the main editorial input has (presumably) been from US contributors. It is a big article and will require a great deal of effort proof-reading ('fraid it's rather a long way down my ToDo list...), but Dp67 has certainly moved it forward. Now we need UK-based editors to address the balance.
EdJogg 09:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere around here I have a link to a similar list of terms for Indian Railways. I'll see if I can find it again this weekend. Slambo (Speak) 10:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


My Apologies, I guess my sense of humor was take too harshly. I understood the nature of the intent I was just being a wise ass. (After all; I am a Welsh Pratt! :) But anyway, can we reach a compromise then and create a UK Terminology page? This list is already quite large (crashing browsers) and getting harder to manage so why not create another one that is more English than American? If we can do that I'll gladly start working on it and use the same template if possible. At least then we wouldn't have to keep tabs on the national origin of the term. Input from people in the UK would really be nice. As for the localized images my idea is to rotate them every so often anyway. Those posted now are mainly fillers to get the project presentable. My task of looking for photos around the world to represent some of the terms never stopped.
The same offer applies for the Indian terms, I've got the URL If it's agreed I'll work on that too and start an Indian page too. What say you?
--Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 11:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Add Term Block Office

I recently came across a term: Block Office used in an article as what a railroad company built along with their tracks in 1890 in a small Pennsylvania town. They constructed a "passenger station" a "block office" and a "trainmaster's office". DNCamper 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Add Term Drag Crew

Also cam across the term Drag Crew in the same article referring to those who maintained the operation of the station (perhaps) DNCamper 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

I've started a quick pass through to add references here like I did with List of U.S. railfan jargon last week (and for which I am still researching). Since most of the terms in this list have articles of their own, unlike the majority of the railfan jargon list, some of the references here will end up being copies of references from the relevant articles. However, any additional references would be welcome. Slambo (Speak) 21:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If the term has its own article, is there really a need for a reference here? New references should be added to the pages in question. What is most important is finding references for the terms that do not have WP articles... EdJogg (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
While the priority should be for terms that do not yet have articles, I fear that if we don't reference them all, someone will tag or remove terms as unreferenced without looking at the associated articles. Slambo (Speak) 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoofly - mark as US?

I'm British and had never heard of the word until now. I don't know whether it's exclusively American (hence my reluctance to mark it such) but it's certainly not general. 86.132.142.207 (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it either. A quick google for 'shoofly rail' produces relatively few relevant links, and those that are all seem to relate to US practice. Would seem safe to label as US parlance. EdJogg (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I worked for the railroad here in Texas and I have heard of it, however the practice of shooflying is not widely accepted anymore with the onset of derailment technology. Back in the day it could take up to several weeks to fix a stretch of derailed track so it would be easier to make a shoofly and run delayed trains around the accident. Now derailments can be fixed quickly, with bulldozers, cranes and etc. so it would actually be a waste of time to build one. Just fix the track and get the trains through. Sept. 12, 2008(J. Crowson UPRR)

Gandy Dancers?

I have heard the term used before, but not here in the southern US. I had known a track worker from Minnesota that used the term frequently, but trackcrews here in Texas DO NOT use that term, we are simply just a "Gang" or "Workgang". So I think railroad terms should even be split into regions, because northern railworkers do use different terms than we do. Just like I would say "coke" to refer to any type of soft drink, a person from Chicago would say "Pop". Just my 2 cents. Sept. 12, 2008 (J. Crowson UPRR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.178.171 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Add the word "Pig Tails"

Since there is a picture showing a pig tail (the first picture on the article under the section "rail terminology"), the picture shows a tie plate with two bolts and instead of being spiked down to the rail, there is a pig tail being used. That is a metal fastener shaped like a pig's tail (obviously) that is placed on the side of the tie plate and sledge hammered into place, and sometimes it can be hell to get on, especially if the tie is not fully tamped up. Sept. 12, 2008 (j.Crowson UPRR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.178.171 (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"All aboard"

Wouldn't this term/phrase fit in somewhere here? Also, this should probably be copied (not moved!) to wiktionary:Category:Glossaries as it's noticeably missing. -- Ϫ 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:CSX color position light Savage MD.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CSX color position light Savage MD.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Car/Wagon

Kind of basic, but not listed, although implied (lots of compound terms, e.g. flatcar). Are they the same? US/UK? Is a freight car the same as a goods wagon? Other glaring omissions are marshalling yard / classification yard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.37.129 (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncited content

Per a recent discussion, I'm removing several uncited definitions and placing them below for now. This will finally rid the glossary of {{Citation needed}} tags. Anybody is welcome to reintroduce these definitions (and subsequently remove them from this list), but please do so only if you are supplying suitable (i.e. non-wiki) references as well. I'll reintroduce a few myself over the coming weeks. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Slambo is doing an awesome job of adding citations. I'll wait until he's idle before dealing with the remaining uncited content. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. I've found it pretty easy to locate reliable sources for most of the terms that lack citations; it takes longer for me to write the citation than it does to find the reference. If you look back at the history of this page, there was a push in 2008 to add reliable sources to prevent the article's deletion; I worked on it then and got a barnstar out of it so I figured I'd chip in again to find more citations. It's likely that I can find more from my personal reference library, so I'll get into that after this first pass of finding web-searchable and verifiable references. Slambo (Speak) 20:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I've found many reliable sources to take care of a lot of the {{cn}} tags, but in doing so, I noticed the Trains Magazine glossary pages are marked as dead links. I don't see where Kalmbach moved the pages, so replacing or supplementing those citations seems to be the next logical step of the referencing task. I'm adding that to my process for this page now... Slambo (Speak) 15:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You might not have to replace those dead-linked references if we can find an archive URL for the original pages. I haven't had time to check the archiving websites yet but it's been on my to-do list. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Slambo, please hold off on removing the dead-lined refs. Like I said, I'll work on adding archive URLs for those. Thanks. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 03:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked around Trains' current website to try to find it, but it appears to be removed (at least right now). I haven't seen it on archive.org yet either. I regularly meet up with people who work at Kalmbach at various model railroad events around me (I'm in Madison, Waukesha is about an hour drive away from me), so I know from talking to them that they do their homework before printing anything on any of their sites or publishing it in print, and removing these dead links isn't a slight at the source itself. However, putting the main ref call in the {{references|refs= ...}} section at the end of the article can also be a bit of cleanup in that it reduces the amount of wiki code in the article body, centralizes the citation text and standardizes the format of the references (differences are more easily spotted when they're next to each other). I was planning on centralizing and combining in this way the repeated refs that I've been adding once I finish the initial pass of research. I often treat the {{dead link}} template as a marker for a citation that needs to be replaced because the archived page can be nearly impossible to find in some cases. Slambo (Speak) 14:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The location of the refs is a preference. I apologize for moving them back up; I thought you were just moving them down to work towards eliminating them. Now that I found suitable archive links, you're welcome to move them back down to the {{Reflist}}. Please do leave the <ref name="Trains Glossary..." /> behind as you go, though. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Elephant style (US railfan jargon)

I noticed this entry and wondered if it belongs here? It is already covered in Glossary of North American railway terms (and List of US railfan jargon redirects to it). Robevans123 (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree; a term should not be duplicated between the different glossaries. "Elephant style" is US terminology. Therefore, let me remove it from here (copying the refs over to the other glossary first). – voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent deletion of contents

The recent removal of contents is far too rigorous. Many uncited items actually do have proper sources on the internet or already have a particular article on Wikipedia.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you just reverted dozens of positive edits—only a few of which were removal of uncited content (and are summarized as such). Note that I reverted your revert in order to save the non-removal work. Please do not use heavy-handed tools, such as rollback, as weapons against good-faith edits. A little more care would be appreciated.
Secondly, my diffs show that I did not remove terms having their own [particular] articles on Wikipedia. Your statement on that note is baseless.
Third, where is the proper amount of rigorousness defined? It is my understanding that uncited content is fair game for removal at any time—especially when tagged as lacking proper citations. This article is indeed tagged at the top.
Lastly, I have been nurturing this article back to health for awhile now. I hope to rid this article of made-up definitions (I've seen some that are obviously made up), obscure terms, company-specific lingo, slang, and terms that are not railroad specific (like per diem). Yes, I understand that wholesale removal of uncited definitions is heavy handed, but it is a path forward. My next step is to copy references from linked articles into this one. But anyway, if you do not want to see these and other uncited definitions removed, then please help add citations! – voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

To support my point, I'll give you a few examples of removed content which does have its own wikipedia page, or can be properly referenced.

And no, I really don't consider it fair game when unsourced contents are removed without making a simple google or wiki search proving the contrary of your statements.

To use your own words: A little more care would be appreciated.

See the following diff for an example of items that you removed which have either already have their own wiki page or have proper references: [3]

Having only given a few examples of the first instances that you removed in this diff, I think I have illustrated my point good enough.

Moreover, after browsing your contributions on wikipedia, I don't have the impression that you are a regular contributor to rail-related articles which, in my opinion, indicates that you are not very well familiar with all railway terminology present in this article.

However, I agree that this article needs a lot of cleanup (although less rigorously than demonstrated in your recent edits).--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You appear to blatantly misunderstand the requirement of references. Content needs to be cited on Wikipedia. Just because supporting facts exist somewhere out there (in Google land) does not mean that you can turn Wikipedia into your own private Urban Dictionary. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Nor is Wikipedia a place for original research—of which you seem to do quite a bit.
Please don't attempt to pigeonhole me based on my contribution history. I happen to be knowledgeable about many things. While I'm not a professional railroader, I do find it to be a hobby. That is what brought me to this glossary page in the first place. You are taking this far too personally. Please be sure to control any feelings of ownership over this and other railroading articles.
If you can build references, that would be wonderful. Linking defined terms to corresponding Wikipedia articles would be appreciated as well. I have to wonder why you haven't done so already. Perhaps it is because you are performing original research. Perhaps it is because you are defining slang or obscure terms. Worse yet, you might be plagiarizing! Without references, I can't be sure. That is exactly why references are required on Wikipedia. Anything you write and fail to cite is subject to removal, period. It's verbose nonrigorous editors like yourself that give Wikipedia the reputation of being chalk full of falsehoods. Don't get me wrong; your edits are appreciated. They just generally lack the required references.
Although I still intend to cleanup this article, I will gladly wait a week before removing uncited content. Please help the article by citing and linking the definitions in this list, instead of stubbornly standing in the way of the progress that the tags at the top of the article request. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed WP:REF's subsection WP:NOCITE which doesn't provide any justification for immediate removal of unsourced content, unless it is harmful.

You refer to the tags on top of the page for a justification of your content removal, but the refimprove tag clearly asks for additional citations, not removal!

Furthermore, your user page mentions the Glossary of rail transport terms under your refimprove todo section. As far as I have understood the this refimprove template means that only after failing to find references, the content may be challenged by adding a citation needed or unreferenced tag, and if it remains unchallenged it may be removed. Not the other way around by immediate removal.

I don't claim ownership of this article, it just became part of my watchlist after only two small AWB maintenance edits on track gauge templates. This is to clarify that I am not responsible for the contents on this page.

I agree that slang, made-up definitions and original research should be removed from this page. But I disagree with your apparent "IF unreferenced THEN remove" routine.

Starting from tomorrow I will make an assessment of the content that you removed and will restore what is appropriate.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually familiar with WP:NOCITE; the {{Unreferenced}} and {{Refimprove}} tags are alternatives to the {{Citation needed}} tag. Which tag gets used depends upon the situation:
  • If only a handful of statements are uncited, they can be tagged individually with {{Citation needed}}.
  • If much of the article is uncited, it would be overly rigorous and time consuming to apply {{Citation needed}} tags to hundreds of statements. A single {{Refimprove}} tag at the top is then appropriate.
  • Only if the article doesn't have any citations whatsoever should the {{Unreferenced}} tag be used.
So in this case, I'm considering the {{Refimprove}} banner to be the fair warning. I tagged it in May, and I'd consider four months to be more than a reasonable amount of time for sources to be provided. However, none were added in that time frame, which is why I started removing some of the uncited definitions (specifically, the ones that did not have a corresponding Wikipedia article). – voidxor (talk | contrib) 22:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please consider WP:USI: When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed.

I agree that 50% out of your last edits couldn't be sourced properly. For the other 50% there was an abundance of information on Wikipedia as well on the net.

If you want to persist in this behavior please consider WP:REMOVAL: Unexplained content removal when the reason for the removal is not obvious is open to being promptly reverted.

Confusing refimprove with content deletion isn't a proper reason nor in the interest of Wikipedia. Like I tried to explain before.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, please stop performing full reverts of my edits. I made other fixes in my recent edits besides the removal of uncited content (such as correcting "abbreviation" to "acronym" and an MOS:ANDOR fix). I would appreciate it if you would please take the time to view the diffs of edits you are about to revert and only partially revert that with which you disagree.
We clearly disagree as to whether {{Refimprove}} can be considered the fair warning expected by WP:NOCITE, similar to {{Unreferenced}} or {{Citation needed}}. Let's please stop arguing about this. I'll remove the {{Refimprove}} tag and use {{Citation needed}} instead. While applying dozens of {{Citation needed}} tags is unnecessarily tedious in my opinion, I'll do it to help the us move forward instead of going through circular arguments.
Give me a break on the WP:REMOVAL business! The reason for removal is perfectly obvious in this case; the content's uncited and the article has been tagged as needing references for months! – voidxor (talk | contrib) 19:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In return, I would appreciate it if you would please take the time to perform a simple wiki or google query for each item you intend to delete:

WP:PRESERVE / WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM: Preserve appropriate content. Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't.

If "you can't" means unwillingness or incompetence in finding proper sources I'm afraid you are not the right person to edit this article.

The refimprove tag speaks for itself, being a request for additional references. Not a carte blanche for mass deletion.

WP:NOCITE only provides a reason for deletion (after a reasonable amount of time) when a statement is doubtful. As my recent revert indicates, less than 50% is doubtful, the rest could be easily provided with an internal wiki link or a reference found in the first ten results of Google search. (I found 1 copyvio, 12 wiki pages and 10 references).

Quote: the content's uncited and the article has been tagged as needing references for months! Your own words contradict your behavior. The tag asks for references! Not deletion.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay...? I seem to be doing far more work on this article as of recent than you. If you want references so badly, why don't you add more of them? Thank you for the ones that you have added, but you are only adding references to reintroduce what I've removed (i.e. terms starting with A, B, C, D, and E). I said I would gladly wait a week so that you could add references, but you stopped after A and B! Again, your laziness is not appreciated here because it is holding up progress on the article. Either help add references, help remove content, or let me continue to work through this disaster of an article. I've gathered that you love to add content to Wikipedia, but you drag your feet when it comes to adding citations. Yes, it's easier and more fun to type content than it is to populate citations, but facts need to be cited. The best person to cite is the editor who introduced the content. When somebody (like you) adds a lot of content but fails to cite their sources, it leaves other editors to wonder if the content was plagiarized and to struggle to find suitable references. Yes, I'm removing some terms that I know to be factual, but I'm only doing so temporarily until references can be added. Uncited content is not trustable to those who are not familiar with the subject matter (I myself am somewhat familiar with the subject matter, not that it matters).
Please don't call me incompetent! I'm working to rid this article of uncited content—beit by adding references or deleting content. Like I've already explained, I'm doing the removal first (because it's easier and quicker) then adding citations later. When you start contributing more to this article than me, you can call me whatever you like.
And lay off the {{Refimprove}} vs. WP:NOCITE semantics already! I just told you that I'd like to please stop arguing about that because we obviously disagree on how literally {{Refimprove}} and WP:NOCITE should be interpreted. I will replace {{Refimprove}} with several {{Citation needed}} tags shortly. Then you will have your fair warning per a literal interpretation of WP:NOCITE. So please hang tight. We both want to do what's right for this article. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 21:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's dubious to revert the removal of unsourced content. The maintenance of such content shouldn't be a priority. For comparison, I handled the similar mess at Glossary of North American railway terms by tagging every unreliable/unreferenced item individually: [4]. That was August and it's now October. While there's no time limit on Wikipedia, I think it's reasonable at this point to start removing the unreferenced items and to remove the unreliable references. I would also note that in several cases the linked articles on Wikipedia were not themselves referenced. Mackensen (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that the time period should be longer. Given that this is a relatively mid-traffic article and that editors cannot spend all their time on wiki, I'd say give until February 2015 (6 months after initial cn tagging). – Epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, Epicgenius, I performed removal of uncited content using the {{Refimprove}} tag as justification—not the {{Citation needed}} tags. The article was tagged {{Refimprove}} in May 2014. Only recently did I remove the {{Refimprove}} tag and add several {{Citation needed}} tags instead, because I thought that Aaron-Tripel wanted stronger warning (per WP:NOCITE) before content could be removed. Thus, the period between warning and removal was actually four or five months. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 21:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Ohhhh. I get it now. Thanks. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the removal of uncited entries. However, it is useful to place the removed entries where they may be easily accessed and retrieved by inexperienced editors (I know they are there in the history, but a new editor may not). With the glossaries of British, American and New Zealand rail terminology, removed entries were placed on the talk page. Thus giving editors the chance to easily access the entry, and having found a reference the chance to easily return the entry to the article. Maybe that approach can be tried here? Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole point I tried to make from the beginning is that removing content is the final solution to address uncited content (WP:PRESERVE / WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). I strongly disagree with Voidxor's intention to bypass that process. Given the fact that I simply don't have the time to keep up with User:Voidxors current pace and unwillingness to find sources himself I can only express my hope that Voidxor is willing to reconsider his rigid attitude towards this article.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The consensus here appears to be that uncited content should be removed from the article, but placed on the talk page instead of being deleted outright. That is a good idea; I'll get started shortly. I can't fathom why Aaron-Tripel attempted to tattle before proposing such a useful compromise to me. Some people just like a good argument, I guess...
Speaking of arguments, Aaron, it's not that you can't keep pace with me, it's that you don't try to add references before somebody comes along to cleanup uncited content. This article's been tagged for five months and the only citations that you've added have been to reintroduce a few of the removed definitions. Please take a hint from the tags (whether {{Refimprove}}, {{Citation needed}}, or any of the many variations of those) and get ahead of the removal! Contributing nothing for five months straight and then crying foul is silly. And I was willing to address your concerns because I gave you an additional week to add references, and—big surprise here—you didn't add any references to the hundreds of uncited definitions yet to be removed! Then, after a week, I resume work on the article and you cry foul again! If you spent half the time adding citations that you do complaining, we'd be done by now! Sheesh. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 00:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I just found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive858#Unneeded mass deletion of content in Glossary of rail transport terms and in addition there is a discussion at User talk:Voidxor#User talk:Peter Horn# November Peter Horn User talk 14:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(sub)division?

It would be helpful if there was entries for division and subdivision as commonly used by major railroads. --Hhm8 (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Good idea, by the way. – voidxor 22:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glossary of rail transport terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glossary of rail transport terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent deletion of contents, the return

I spent some time to add the Sleeper definition based on my comprehension of this word in a real project in an international context and links it with Tie and its synonyms. In less than a day, all of that had been deleted by voidxor. Explanation is about duplicate found in the UK page of rail contents.

I investigated further why such a deletion and then found there are other wiki pages related to Rail words definitions, one for UK, one for US, etc. but still the word Sleeper is now missing again in this present page. Question remains : why ?

I am not a native English speaker. When I look for a word in Wikipedia because I am working on an international Rail project and read documentation or speak with other non native English workers, I need to understand what a word mean in the right context. I do not have the time to care at first about knowing if it is a UK, US or New Zealandish word, especially when working in countries that are none of these. But I need to be able to translate it myself in my own language by reading some explanation about it in proper English because no dictionary would (often) translate it right away for me. And yes, the slang and company-proprietary wording voidxor was proud to remove (cf. here-above) is important to me to help understand some documentation without any or with too poor glossary.

It is fine to know that one wants to preserve its own country language differences by creating its own wiki pages and I respect that. But guys we live in an international world, with people speaking awfully bad professional English. It sure is a shame but it is a fact, and they still need to communicate; and I believe most people on this planet want also to access to the information they are looking for on the internet very fast. If they can't find it on Wikipedia, they will move on other less reliable web sites sources. And I think this is a pity.

So I wonder about the real rationale for this "Glossary of rail transport terms". Is this some kind of partial duplicate of the above mentioned Railway/Railroad US/UK wiki pages ? Or because no specific nationality appears in the title of this page dedicated to Rails terminology, shouldn't it be some kind of entry point to all the others ? In other words, why shall we not just keep the Sleeper term in this page and add a link to the UK Sleeper/US Tie definitions, which itself will link to the Sleeper wiki page if any ? A glossary to my opinion shall allow you to quickly find what you seek for, wherever you come from and whatever English language or dialect you speak.

I then read carefully what seems to be a playground battle in the above "Recent deletion of contents" section... And there we are. My conclusion is that the harsh way voidxor is acting is not helping the Rail community to improve this article. Slap a child on his hand when he tries to help, and he will never come to you again. I built a sand castle and voidxor destroyed it right after I left the place.

We are not children at the beach but adults in the world wide ocean of knowledge and I postulate we cannot accept to be educated this way. Most of us work and have few time to build things on Wikipedia and even less time to argue about the way things we kindly proposed to the community are badly shaped, maybe with or without references, duplicating or not information from other sites, etc. But we helped improving what seemed to be missing. And that should be the most important and should be first rewarded as such.

My opinion is that if voidxor really wants to help, he shall stop considering himself as some kind of guardian of the Rail temple using his own counterproductive educational rules. I propose he shall instead communicate first with editors (through their talk page for instance or any other wiki mean), explain his point and let the discussion occur before deleting right away their contribution just because he thinks he's right. --Golem Le Brut (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Golem Le Brut: Please cut out the melodramatics; it's not helpful. I've been editing Wikipedia for over ten years, and tend to "think I'm right" when I spot an edit that violates one of our policies or guidelines—even if the editor meant no harm. I reverted your addition of "sleeper" because it went against the policy set forth in WP:GLOBALIZE. Specifically, it introduced a regional term (a British one, in this instance) as if it were a global term. Because of this concern, several region-specific glossaries (such as Glossary of United Kingdom railway terms) where split from this one in 2005–2007. See here for one relevant discussion. That was way before I become involved with these glossaries. I did not "slap you on the wrist" as much as I'm just trying to prevent the backwards progress of these glossaries. If you care to join the effort to improve them, that's great, but please try to work within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:AGF, which your above post blatantly violates. – voidxor 00:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Admissible sources

voidxor has removed a reference to Joern Pachl glossary for being a personal page. While apparently this is 100% true, a big chunk of the European Railway Authority glossary references "IFEV Glossary of Railroad Operation and Control" and if you search for this last glossary, you find that it was moved to Joern Pachl's page. Knowing this, should it still be considered as a purely personal page and off limits as a valid source for wikipedia? It happens to be probably the best source for railway glossary terms, or at least the best one that is freely available. (I'm not sure this is the right space to bring this up) Botatao (talk)

@Botatao: This is indeed the correct venue to pose that question. Although I realize you are probably not asking me, would you mind providing a link to your desired source? We can take a look at it and judge it against Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources. – voidxor 04:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

http://www.joernpachl.de/glossary.htm - Thanks for your help! Botatao (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Botatao: That website is clearly somebody's personal website, and therefore not a reliable source per WP:SPS. – voidxor 03:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, when citing the European Railway Authority glossary, - http://www.era.europa.eu/document-register/documents/glossary%20of%20railway%20terminology-selection-%20en-fr-de.pdf.pdf - the primary source for most of the content is the "IFEV Glossary of Railroad Operation and Control". If you google that, you find a TU Braunschweig webpage forwarding to that personal webpage. Apparently this IFEV glossary was moved to that page (I will investigate). This poses a wider question: if an acceptable source, references an unacceptable source, what do does one make of this? Should we always apply the guidelines blindly, or accept that a personal webpage can in certain circumstances be reliable? Botatao (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Botatao: I will admit it doesn't make perfect since, but it doesn't matter much what our references in turn reference. Therefore, I see nothing in Wikipedia policy that would prevent us from referencing the European Railway Authority. – voidxor 23:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Fully open terminology database by IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission)

This is both an online terminology database and an international standard, so it is probably the most reputed and reliable source there is. It has two chapters which include a lot of railway specific terms. Anyone has the time to go through it and update this glossary? Would it be even a good idea to basically upload the whole thing to this glossary? Or maybe just update the terms that are already in this glossary?

Subject area 811 - http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/index?openform&part=811

Subject area 821 - http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/index?openform&part=821

It is also available on an archive, so we can include reliable references - https://web.archive.org/web/20170713064044/http://electropedia.org/

P.S. Although I must add that according to this - https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/263 - There will be an update published in the of November 2017 for both of them. So it might be worth waiting.

Cheers! - Botatao (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Botatao: You can't just copy and paste content from other websites. Such plagiarism opens Wikipedia to legal action for copyright violation. – voidxor 03:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
"Or maybe just update the terms that are already in this glossary?"
"While Electropedia’s structure and content are copyright IEC, we encourage the use, referencing or citation of Electropedia for the purpose of identifying or clarifying the meaning of electrotechnical concepts, terms and symbols and their use in manuals, diagrams and equipment. We only ask that IEC is referenced as the source. For users wishing to duplicate Electropedia or use large portions for commercially or for free sharing, please contact the IEC." - http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/welcome?openform - Botatao (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Botatao: We can't copy copyrighted content, period. As far as their claims, I don't think you're reading it correctly. Per your quote, they say that their content is copyrighted by the IEC, then go on to say that they encourage referencing or citing them as a source. Referencing is not the same as copying. – voidxor 00:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_rail_transport_terms/Archive_1&oldid=1125497780"