Talk:Railroad car

Trains Top‑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

Top

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

On 14 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was Procedural close.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Military cars

US Air force G50 Strategic Air Command guard car
US Air Force Guard Car G-50Strategic Air Command guard car, rebuilt from Army 1943 troop kitchen car #8750. Photographed at the Western Pacific Railroad Museum in Portola, California.
Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Car.

--Pawyilee (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Railroad car. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327040407/http://www.americanrailcar.com/RailcarManufacturing.aspx to http://www.americanrailcar.com/RailcarManufacturing.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spellings

@Dudhhr: Slate waggon is the actual spelling of the name of the article. The alternative spelling slate wagon is a redirect to the first spelling. Your "typo fix" served no useful purpose. Peter Horn User talk 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS. In the case of the alternative spellings of waggon and wagon it is the reverse, the first one being the redirect to the latter. Go figure. To play it safe, before you correct a "typo", click on the link first. Alternaive spellings can be a minefield. Peter Horn User talk 14:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is strong, unanimous, policy-based opposition to the move so I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad car → Railtruck
Passenger railroad car → Passenger coach

– I propose moving both these articles to the International Union of Railways terms, rather than the American English terms. --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 15:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Please see WP:ENGVAR. 162 etc. (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but one could make the argument that trains were invented in Great Britain, hence MOS:TIES.

Or, because I'm proposing moving to UIC terms, MOS:COMMONALITY could apply.

Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone (WP:5P5), and in many cases WP:IGNORE can apply. --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 16:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter where trains were invented. "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." See also WP:RETAIN: "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." 162 etc. (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was invented in the United States, therefore all articles should use American English. Do you see how silly that argument is? What you're suggesting only applies when a subject has strong ties to a particular country, for instance United States of America would obviously use American English. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONNAME. Trains do not fall under the strong national ties exception, as they are used globally. And the main article at Train is written in American English. And regardless, "railtruck" doesn't even show up on the British Google Ngrams[1]. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too obscure to serve as article title. The term would likely be unfamiliar to general readers. Not an improvement. Walrasiad (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONNAME, given that "railtruck" is currently a WP:Red link as of this writing. If this was a common alternative name, a redirect would have been created already. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have never heard that word before today and it fails WP:COMMONNAME. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But what name would you have instead? --- Tbf69 P • T 19:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the current one? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONNAME, and per the other arguments made by User:Rreagan007. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONNAME, as above. Even in British English, the name is not "railtruck" but "railway wagon"; I've never even heard of a "railtruck". The name of the Passenger railroad car was picked after a thorough discussion in 2021 and there has been no reason given that is sufficient to overturn that previous consensus, and indeed at that time it was pointed out that passenger coach is ambiguous as it may also refer to a coach bus. ENGVAR varies; as has been pointed out, Train (mostly written by myself) is in American English, while Rail transport is in Oxford English. This isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RETAIN (When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.). Also per WP:COMMONNAME - the requester of this RM has not proven that "railtruck" is more common than "railroad car". In fact, as Zzyzx11 says above, railtruck is currently a redlink, which seems to indicate that no one has even created a redirect for this yet (and that "railtruck" is, thus, not that common of a term). Overall, I fail to see how the proposed move would improve understanding of the article's subject, and I am not convinced that WP:IAR is a valid rationale to actually ignore common names or contravene existing guidance about different varieties of English. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Per the strong consensus here, and this proposal has already been closed earlier today. Opening up a new one immediately after a previous SNOW closure is unproductive. If you disagree with a closed move, you should either talk with the closer on their talk page as mentioned above, or open a move review not simply open a new discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad car → ?
Passenger railroad car → ?

– I previously requested that these pages be moved (see Talk:Railroad car#Requested move 13 February 2023). However my proposal to move to the International Union of Railways terms ("Railtruck" and "Passenger coach") was quickly rejected. In fact, I personally don't like Railtruck as a name. Instead, I am now leaving it open to what they be changed to.

Outside of the United States the term "railroad" is effectively not used at all, thereby failing WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:WORLDVIEW.
Many people in the previous move request referred to WP:RETAIN as a reason to keep the current titles. However, MOS:TIES should still apply, and per the article List of countries by rail transport network size, the world has 1,370,782km of railways, and the USA has 220,480km. With the USA using the term railroad and the rest of the world using the term railway, it seems unfair that a country that has 16% of the world's railways should have it's term used for Railroad car, possibly the most important piece of railway rolling stock. --- Tbf69 P • T 14:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. Leave the names be. This was explained to you in the previous move request. Please accept that we rarely change an article's ENGVAR once it has been established. "Wagon" is ambiguous and therefore is not a good choice for a title. This is not a valid application of TIES, which says An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. In fact, the U.S. has the largest rail network of any country. The UIC names are mentioned in the article, as they should be, so there's no real issue here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as opposed per the closed discussion directly above; per Talk:Passenger_railroad_car#Requested_move_30_July_2021, and per WP:IDHT. Let's not try to reinvent the wheel again. - jc37 15:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure what the point of this RM is. Nobody in the RM above seemed dissatisfied with the current name or suggested it should be moved. And the RM opener is not proposing anything. Why was this opened? Seems like a pointless waste of time. Walrasiad (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current names as per the recent discussion that was just closed. I recommend that this RM be withdrawn per WP:RETAIN. I do not believe the argument that the article should be moved because the US only has 16% of the world's railroads/railways - surely the word "railroad" would not cause confusion in other varieties of English, unlike the word "football". – Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close per other comments, especially Walrasiad. Moreover, the MOS:TIES argument is not valid, as there is no especially strong connection between railways/railroads and any particular variety of English. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close per everyone else. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.