Talk:South African Class NG G13 2-6-2+2-6-2
 | This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article title edit
We have yet another shift/change of article name, now to the "claimed" official South African Railways Class NG G13. Yet on searching Google the results show that the official title is South African Railways Class NG/G13. Before anyone comes along and moves this article again - we presently have six redirects which don't work thanks to the current move - can we have some debate on what the article title should be? According to guide WP:TITLE, we don't need to name the article after the official name, but can use most popular searched for. I am also concious in this debate of other editors who have pan-wiki projects to sort locomotive articles on national basis: hence the previous inclusion of South African Railways in the title by one editor, over what seems the official SAR nomenclature for designation of locomotives. Personally, I have no fore thoughts, but would like to stop this continual "change the title" game and reach a thought through conclusion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Move edit
I moved this page to its current title to achieve consistency. Here’s my reasoning:
I’ve just finished creating basic articles for all existing and virtually all old SA electric and diesel locomotives and got started on steam by revamping the Class 26 4-8-4 article. Since the articles are loco-specific, however, I soon ran into a problem with naming them.
The first SA locomotive article I started was for the new Class 15E, at present being commissioned by Transnet Freight Rail, so using "Transnet Freight Rail Class 15E" for the title seemed a good idea. Continuing with the Class 1E, 3E and 4E, I used "South African Railways Class xE" in the titles.
Then I reached the Class 5Es and 5E1s, commissioned by the South African Railways and still in use when SAR became Spoornet and still later TFR. Some are even now still in use with Rovos Rail while others were recently sold at auction to other operators. The multitude of liveries they wear tell the story. The same with the Class 6E, all eleven of the 6E1 series, 7E's and so on. All of them are still in use, but now running in SAR, Spoornet, Shosholoza Meyl and TFR liveries, until some new corporate chief gets a new bright idea next week and adds another new name.
With the SAR diesels one can add TransNamib, Spoornet Traction, Spoornet Tracao, FCA in Brazil, Kumba Iron Ore, Sheltam, RRL and BBR as owners. The same with steam, with ex SAR locos running at Sandstone Estates, at various mines, even in Wales and Switzerland. In addition, the new Class 15E electric also clashes with the old Class 15E steam.
The most sensible solution turned out to use "South African" for the lot, since that covers all, even South African locomotives that never saw SAR/Spoornet/TFR service, but started new in private service such as at Landau Colliery and with Sheltam Grindrod and RRL. With steam locomotives, adding the wheel arrangement will prevent clashes such as with the Class 15E electric, as in "South African Class 26 4-8-4”.
After all, the focus of all these articles is on locomotive type, not owner.
André Kritzinger 15:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)