Talk:List of rail transport–related periodicals

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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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.

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

• Modern Railways ISSN 0026 8356
• Tramways & Urban Transit ISSN 1460-8320

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]

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

Should there be a separate

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

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

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

==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

Note - didnt revert after all - need to review whole list at a much later date - will leave as is for the moment

Suro 10:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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.
  Suro 04:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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]

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

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

]