Talk:List of rail transport–related periodicals

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2021. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sample ISSN

What is the correct format of an ISSN? Hyphen or no?

Tabletop 01:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen, yes. See ISSN. — RandallJones 5 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

Also not a good idea to make article links out of the ISSN numbers - the magazine article link will suffice, and the series of ISSN numbers could mean something else in other Wikipedia contexts (i.e. an ambiguity that is not a good idea). Dl2000 02:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN links

Someone has improved the ISSN number so that it links to the actual publisher, where known. Tabletop 10:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Models

Should there be a separate List of model railroad-related periodicals? See Model railways.

Tabletop (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.fahrplancenter

See [1] for some other foreign language books and magazines.

Tabletop (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New section

~~==Redlink removal reversion==~~

Please note that the reversion of the 'red link removal' editing of recent is simply to allow adequate review of the supposed lack of notability of some of the redlinks - as far as I can see from a brief review of the titles - they are indeed notable - and also workable - just a lack of editor focus on getting the info into this list Satu Suro 09:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - didnt revert after all - need to review whole list at a much later date - will leave as is for the moment Satu Suro 10:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to deleted question.

There is no policy or practice that justifies removal of redlinks if the periodicals/magazines have existed at some point.
Whether a railway magazine is notable or not within (a)general Notability guidelines (b) Notability for magazines (c) Notability relative to railways should not be a reason to edit magazines out of this list. Satu Suro 04:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Transportation Magazine

Australian "Railway Transportation" run from 1951. Only 3 issues were printed in 1951. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.137.60 (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

Wikipedia is not a directory. This list should not contain every rail and rail hobby magazine that ever existed. As a Wikipedia list, it should conform to WP:MOSLIST and only list those magazines that already have Wikipedia articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then YOUR Wikipedia policies has created a catch 22. Model Railroad Hobbyist has a readership in the range of 100,000 per month, but is not "notable" because it doesn't have a wikipedia article - like the one the Wikipedia editors REMOVED earlier today? Since this readership base is larger than some of the magazines that are included in this list (see Railroad Craftsman, for example), then you should pull the whole list. Mycroft (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Model Railroad Hobbyist was not deleted for lack of notability, but because the article was blatantly promotional. Now, if you can create a non-promotional and well-sourced article about the magazine, then it can be included here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Wikipedia function correctly, doesn't such an article start with listing the title in the list of railroad modeling periodicals? Why then was putting Model Railroad Hobbyist in the list a second time deleted, thereby making it difficult to even start said correctly neutral article? Just seems odd that all the other magazines would be listed and the one all-digital version that's 5 years old and has two Wikipedia references to it (see virtual railroading and death notice for Hal Carstens) keeps getting deleted while we're trying to rebuild it correctly. Just trying to figure out how to fill this gap in Wikipedia's knowledge base on this topic area without getting the hammer dropped. Can we get some help? Jfugatesr (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've been a bit overzealous. When I stumbled across this article, it had become a spam-field with links to every conceivable publication, regardless of the notability, readership, or any other criteria. But to Jfugatesr's point: no, that is not necessarily how Wikipedia functions. To be sure, the presence of red-links to Model Railroad Hobbyist in several places may well indicate the need for the article, the mere inclusion of the redlink in this list will not likely spur someone on to create the article. For list articles like this one, the better criteria is that the article already exist, and then it can be added to this list. This avoids the listcruft problem of every hobbyist adding their favorite publication, even if it is the newsletter of their 5-member club (and yes, there were some of those in the list before I cleaned it up). If the magazine is so notable, creating the article should not be a problem. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several users have now insisted on including Model Railroad Hobbyist in this list. Based on this, I will request an article at requested articles. Any of you enthusiasts who are so insistent that this is a notable publication deserving inclusion are free to write the article on Model Railroad Hobbyist. If none of you choose to do so, I will likely delete the entry once again. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has taken up the invitation to create this article, so perhaps I was mistaken about its enthusiasts. I will remove it once again, and once again request that it not be included on this list until someone can verify that merits inclusion (preferably by writing the article). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives International

Locomotives International is up to issue #89 in April/May 2014. Does this amount to notability?

Some details include:

ISSN 1353-7091
A4 size
pages = 68
glossy paper
full colour
price GBP 4.95
website = www.locomotivesinternational.co.uk
publisher = Mainline and Maritime Ltd

Tabletop (talk), 04:44, 23 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Tabletop: As noted in the discussion above, the publication should not be added to this list until a standalone article has been written about it. If the publication is notable enough for its own article (as indicated by the availability of independent sources writing about the publication), then it can be added to this list, but it shouldn't be added until the standalone article has been created. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed

It looks like the tables at Rail transport periodical could be merged into this list, instead of being somewhat a duplication. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Same topic (or a sub-topic of it). Having the details in a different place from the list is distracting. Put them all in one place, to encourage editors both to add details to the list article, and to create individual articles if they think there's enough to pass WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unmerged. A user complained about all the little sub-articles. So Rail transport periodical was created to put all the new new sub-articles into a single article. A sortable table was also added.
An advantage of keeping List of rail transport-related periodicals and Rail transport periodical separate is to allow one to be printed without the other, which can save paper and ink. The former is for the overview while the latter is for the detail. Tabletop (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]