Talk:List of GM-EMD locomotives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
| List | This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force. |
I'm a little confused as to where the GP15D and GP20D should go. On the one hand, they're lettered GP and they're capable of road speeds, but they're marketed as switchers. I guess I'm leaning toward moving them into the switcher column, but I'm not sure enough to do it without a second opinion. Ckape 05:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] pages for models or series?
I also wonder about whether it would be better to group similar locomotives, For example, the SD70, SD70M, SD70I, SD70MAC, SD75M, SD75I, SD70ACe and SD70M-2 are all rather similar and I'm not sure there's enough differences to justify having separate pages for them all and the repeated information that would come with having separate pages. Similarly the SD80MAC, SD89MAC, and SD90MAC could probably be combined into an SD90-series page Ckape 06:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say we should start with one article (with redirects for the more specific names) and split if we end up with enough material for seperation. —Morven 11:09, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
There are others that should be merged. The SW and SC were the same damn locomotive with welded and cast frames, respectively; same for the NW and NC. It might even be sensible to merge all the Winton-engined switchers together. Many of the later switchers can be covered in related groups too. Of course, each individual name should be a redirect. This all depends whether enough can be said about individual models, of course. —Morven 04:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rebuilds?
What about rebuilds that are given new, "fictitious" model numbers? Eg. Pacific Harbor Line 45 is called a 'SD20-2' (http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=93377) - should we list such? I'm inclined to agree, if simply because people will come here expecting to find them. —Morven 09:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
In regards to rebuilds, there are a lot of ways to classify them, such as by model, railroad, rebuilder and so on. They should be listed eventually, but they would be difficult to do, because the large number of variants. In my opinion we should try and finsh all factory build locomotives first or atleast get the major ones to an acceptable level, before starting to work on rebuilds, but if someone wants to start making a list of rebuilts they can go ahead. --Spot87 18:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Santa Fe's CF7 comes to mind as a notable rebuild model that is now gaining wider acceptance on shortlines. I've been wondering how to include them myself. I don't think they should necessarily be listed in this article, but they should be mentioned in the article describing their source parts, something like "many of these locomotives were rebuilt by the Santa Fe Railroad shops into CF7s" or somesuch. I hesitate to recommend a List of rebuild model diesel locomotives article, but we might want to consider it so we can start collecting the information in one place. I would agree on finishing off the standard models before tackling rebuilds en masse. slambo 19:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Please have a look at the new article CF7; an article regarding the Santa Fe's conversion of EMD SD24s into SD26s might look similar, for example.--Lordkinbote 09:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] EMD GP60 Series?
What does everyone think of moving EMD GP60, which contains infomation on the GP60, GP60B and GP60M, to EMD GP60 Series? This would be alot the EMD SD70 Series, because the locomotives are so similar and there are only 300 or so locomotives in the EMD GP60 series. --Spot87 22:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
There are also several other series that could be combined into one article, atleast for the time being; such as the SD60 series, possibly the GP15 series, and maybe some others. What does everyone think? --Spot87 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure on the article renaming. On one hand, the article title should reflect the model's most common name (like we have with GP60 right now), but an article name should reflect the article's content (if it's really about a series of models, then adding "series" to the title could be appropriate). However, redirects are cheap; each individual model name should be redirected into the one article about the entire series (like the SC, T, etc., are now). I guess I'm indifferent at this point. slambo 19:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I agree completely, so we will leave things as is for the time being. --Spot87 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EMD 511.jpg
Image:EMD 511.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Fair use tags fully explained now.. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 04:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This page is massive!
This page is beginning to fill up rapidly. WP starts barking out that warning at around 37kB and this page is now over 50kB. Are there any objections to splitting the page into sub pages for SD Series, GP series, Etc.. That should cut down the size some. I tried stripping all unnecessary whitespace and that only saved 1kB. I've never had a problem loading the page but the disclaimer claims that some browsers may have trouble and don't want to cause any grief.. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 05:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BM SC 1104.jpg
The image Image:BM SC 1104.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
-
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
