Talk:Boxcar/Archive 1

Wood vs metal construction

Does anyone know when the transition started and when metal construction was widespread? I can recall some wooden boxcars in my youth (early 1960's) and pretty much gone by the late 1970's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpyoldgeek (talk • contribs) 04:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Journal bearings vs roller bearings

Again, any information would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpyoldgeek (talk • contribs) 04:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of boxcars by Ottoman empire

While watching a PBS documentary about the Armenian Genocide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-MUPPJWdjE), I heard that the Ottoman Empire used boxcars in use by the Anatolian Railway to deport Armenian deportees to the Syrian desert. Any records of how many Ottoman Armenians died in the boxcars during the Armenian Genocide? 68.4.28.33 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Merge Covered goods wagon article into Boxcar

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose that the article Covered goods wagon is merger into article Boxcar. The reason is that the topic is the same and neither article is large enough to justify a split along geographic lines. Why merge Covered goods wagon ("Cgw") into Boxcar and make Cgw a redirect? Because Boxcar is the much older article. Boxcar was created back in 2003 by Rickyrab; Cgw was created in 2009 by Bermicourt in the full knowledge that the article Boxcar already existed. If after the merge there needs to be a requested move to decide on the most appropriate name then that can be done. But for the moment please restrict the the discussion to whether the two article ought to be merged. -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Don’t merge because this does not meet the criteria at WP:MERGE:

There is no "duplication" or “large overlap”. Boxcar concentrates on N American practice; Covered goods wagon focuses on European and worldwide practice based on official International Union of Railways (UIC) terminology and classes.

The pages are not “very short and unlikely to be expanded.” These topics are huge and both pages could be developed into long, comprehensive articles.

Neither requires "background material or context" from a merged article. Both have historic sections covering their separate development and each cross-links to each other.

The articles meet the 3 criteria for not merging because:

The resulting article would become too long or clunky, especially when the topics are expanded as is likely.

Both can be further expanded into longer standalone, but cross-linked, articles

The topics are discrete – boxcars are N American in design and deployment; UIC Classes are internationally-defined and used in Europe and other UIC active-member countries around the world

I believe a merge would be very messy as we would be combining a generic regional term with a precise international definition – the two are not compatible and cover different spheres - geographically and technically. Also I’m not sure that it would be fair to merge first and debate the name later – the title of any merge needs consensus. IMHO two articles are fine as they are, with almost no overlap and no contention over the title. Better to focus on developing them further, not merging into a title that will be contentious as much of the world doesn't use "boxcar". --Bermicourt (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As you created the fork knowing that Boxcar already existed I think MRDA is appropriate for you comment . -- PBS (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not a fork; they cover different material, as anyone who reads the articles in detail will see. And, as an admin, I don't really think you should resort to that sort of remark, even with a smiley! Bermicourt (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Merge Per WP:MERGE criteria #1: Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope. The two articles are about the same topic. If the resulting article is two long, a daughter article(s) can be spun off. Suggest spinning off "History of covered wagons" and "International Union of Railways designs". LK (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  At the moment the total combined size of both articles is about 33k and that is without removing any duplicate text, so the total size is not a problem at the moment. If in the future it does, I agree with your suggestion. -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Don’t merge per Bermicourt. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Merger a boxcar is as different to a van as a caboose is to a brake van. Different continents, different meanings. Boxcars are mostly bogie vehicles, whereas vans are mostly non-bogie vehicles. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge (invited randomly by bot) The Goods wagon article gives us the overview. Boxcar describes the North American type of freight-car/goods-wagon and Covered goods wagon describes the European types. We need to remove the text at the beginning of Boxcar and Covered goods wagon that suggest the terms are synonyms. Instead the distinctions should be clarified and the taxonomic relationships to "goods-wagon/freight-car" should be emphasized. Jojalozzo 00:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Opposed also For all the reasons other editors have noted. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Opposed imho agree that WP:MERGE not met Zarpboer (talk)
• Oppose for reasons already stated. Seems to me that because it was thought a merge might be warranted due to similarities, it suggests to me the articles don't adequately explain the differences.
• Merge Duplicate. --Fox1942 (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: it is preferable for the author of an RFC to remain silent about their desire for a particular outcome. If one is requesting comments in good faith rather than seeking a particular outcome, it's inappropriate to criticize the results, especially by questioning the neutrality of the participants. Also, the RFC itself should not contain arguments for or against the question. This taints the results and make consensus more difficult to achieve. A good faith RFC should be presented with a neutral question and it often helps to create two subsections, a "Survey" section just for participants' responses to the question and a "Discussion" section where issues may be discussed. Jojalozzo 00:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. :) I think that editors should be passionate about their proposed editors and argue the merits of what they propose to update articles with, that includes responding to editors who are called in to offer opinions on the RFC. More information is always better than less (when the information is accurate) and editors called to RFC should be afforded more information by editors suggesting updates. Damotclese (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any strong reason to restrain RfCs in this manner. It's not at all uncommon to see someone who has an interest in the outcome propose the RfC and it's usually pretty easy for a closing editor to suss that out. The arguments thing is pretty situationally dependent. Sometimes it makes sense to have a straightforward statement and sometimes it makes sense for an editor writing the RfC to explain why it's needed. The discussion/voting split is also not a hard and fast rule. Some RfCs (namely content ones) can do without a split section because we expect the participation to be limited enough that discussion and "voting" can be interleaved. Others (usually policy ones) may work better with a discussion/voting split. But it shouldn't matter much either way. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm somewhat inclined to oppose, but I must also point out that one driver towards merger is that the leads of both articles claim that they are different names for the same thing. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. Boxcar is "generally used to carry general freight" and Covered Wagon is "designed for the transportation of moisture-susceptible goods" according to the leads. Not only that, but could the images illustrating Boxcar be transferred to the Coverered Wagon article, and vice versa? Moriori (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite. Here's how each begins:

• A covered goods wagon or van (US and Canada: boxcar)...
• A boxcar (the North American term; other terms include "goods van" (UK), "louvre van" (Australia), "covered wagon" (UIC and UK) or just "van" (UIC and UK))...

I've taken the links out of both but in the second case the alternate names all link back to the other article. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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.