Talk:Travel for rail enthusiasts

I know this has only just been created so maybe there are some big ideas and content planned for the page but initial thought is that this should be merged into Rail travel. A definition of a term is more for Wikipedia than Wikivoyage. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:High-speed_rail#Purpose_and_directions_of_this_article --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

So a discussion on an article questioning if there is any useful information for travellers in it and whether it should be merged into the Rail Travel article or not came to the conclusion another article with no information for tourist or business travellers should be created?! If there was some useful information about the hobby and maybe links to trainspotter web sites and top destinations for rail fans then OK, but a place holder I do not get, better to expand one of the existing articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup, a place for more technical information that is of interest to 'railway enthusiasts' but of limited appeal to general travelers would find itself here.

And yes, I thought the haste in questioning the existence of this article was rather unfortunate. If you want to get into that conversation about how we deal with rail travel articles in general then that may be a more appropriate response. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this article does have potential, but I am not sure whether I like the current title. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The title seriously sounds weird to me. Looking only at the title, I would assume this is an article about railfans rather than trains and railways. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is why I originally questioned it, fine to add an article on train spotting and train related attractions (which I added a few) but do we need an article on trainspotters? (Birdwatching yes,Birdwatchers no) Maybe we should see which direction the article goes then think about a better title. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. Another title is needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about the name of this article

So which title should this article have? Any suggestions? I will just brainstorm a bit...

• Trainspotting
• Tips for railfans
• Railway tourism (might be confusing)
• Trainwatching

Feel free to add to the list Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually thought 'Trainspotting' as well, but Wikipedia changed my mind. The other discussion on High Speed Rail was that there are Railway enthusiasts who enjoy travelling on HSR (and other forms of rail transport), and the serial number of the train itself isn't that important. A Trainspotter is (roughly) about seeking out new trains and recording them, and enjoying aspects of train travel is not directly. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

So maybe this should also include a discussion about the scope and direction of this article? I think the current title should not stay... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No argument from me to change the title. Just looking for that perfect word. :)

My next best suggestion would be Travel for Railway Enthusiasts --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I find that elegant. Anyone object? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"Trainspotting", "trainwatching" or "travel for railway enthusiasts" sound good. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Any last comments before the change is committed? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Travel for Railway Enthusiasts defines a good scope for this article. An article about interesting places on the topic of trains and rail travel is a good idea, an article on trainspotting (collecting train numbers sighted) is something for a specialist website. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates for linear objects

I have the following problems with the tunnels: Part of the thing that makes them special is their nontrivial length... I think the easiest thing would be to give markers for both ends somehow... But how would we best do that? For example for the Gotthard Base Tunnel we would have this and this as our markers... Or do you have a better proposal? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Page move

Any reason for this unexplained and undiscussed move from the previous name (Travel for rail enthusiasts) to the current one (Enthusiast rail travel)? In my opinion this not so subtly changes the meaning. The old title would mean imho all places of interest to rail enthusiasts whereas the new title would only include the specific type of rail travel aimed at enthusiasts (as opposed to e.g. the plain old train to get from A to B), which would naturally exclude such sites as the Golden Spike. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been eager to reduce the over-exposure of the world "travel" in article names, which is a vestige from The Old Site. Of course, discussion about the article name is welcome. /Yvwv (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The current name is catchier. I approve. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

How about switching the first two words? Making it Rail enthusiast travel? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Large-scale initiatives involving the alteration of multiple articles in aspects as fundamental as their titles, i.e. "reduc[ing] the over-exposure of the world 'travel' in article names", is something that really shouldn't be done without first establishing consensus about whether such change is desirable. This is a travel site, so it's only natural that the word "travel" would be used frequently. I think the original "Travel for rail enthusiasts" is by far the clearest and most understandable title of all those proposed in this thread, which IMO is a far more important factor to consider than "catchiness" or SEO considerations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There is also some anecdotal evidence that we have a head start on SEO for new creations after the migration. Especially when they were written from scratch rather than spun off (Intercity buses in Germany comes to mind) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yvwv: @Ikan Kekek: @AndreCarrotflower: So do we leave the title as is or do we move the page? I frankly am not entirely satisfied with the current title for reasons lined out above. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Didn't we just have a #Discussion about the name of this article which ended in some sort of consensus? Why are we doing this again? K7L (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes and said consensus was for a different name than the one the article is currently filed under. I am frankly not happy with this undiscussed move. Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's still filed under "Enthusiast rail travel"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You've now moved it; I think "Travel for rail enthusiasts" is clearer than "Enthusiast rail travel". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Still not happy about the name, as the article is not primarily about transportation, but about destinations to visit. Maybe we can use railroad destinations, railroad history, railroad adventures or similar? Compare maritime history, automotive history and aviation history. /Yvwv (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The term "railroad" is used exclusively in the USA as far as I know. I would prefer to use the more widely uses "railway". Ground Zero (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Related article on de-wv

The article de:Eisenbahnmuseen has a similar topic albeit with a different focus, namely railway museums. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)