 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Infobox
edit@ Slambo, two cents from the Cape: I'm not so sure that using Infobox Locomotive in a wheel arrangement article is a good idea. In my opinion, if it is done for one, it should be done for all, for uniformity's sake. Points to ponder:
- Everything in it, already appears in the Garratt table in the text.
- "Number rebuilt" is not right, "Total production" would be.
- Try it on 4-6-2 or 4-8-2 or 4-8-4 and I suspect it will become unworkable in a hurry. - André Kritzinger (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I was wondering about it as I made the edits last night while working through Category:Rail transport articles needing infoboxes. A lot of the information on more common wheel arrangements will be very different as a number of manufacturers have made different versions for them (especially for arrangements like 4-4-0 or 4-6-2). I would very much like to see infoboxes on all the wheel arrangement articles for the same reasons as we have them on specific locomotive class articles; the infobox helps with consistency of information and shows the technical details in an easy way without cluttering the article body full of tables and tech specs. As to the data in this infobox being duplicated in the article body, that discussion has taken place since infoboxes were first introduced, and the consensus is that it is okay for an infobox to duplicate information because it is a shortened summary of the specific details in the article. The mobile version of Wikipedia knows how to deal with infoboxes that are based on the standard Template:Infobox, it doesn't always display tables in the article body properly because they vary so greatly. Slambo (Speak) 12:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's doable, but I'd suggest the following:
- Create a dedicated "Infobox wheel arrangement".
- Instead of "Builder", where you'll find that wheel arrangements like 0-4-0, 4-6-2, 4-8-2 or 4-8-4 were built by virtually every manufacturer on the planet, use titles like "First built by", subheaded separately for tank and tender engines since the reasons for its use on the two types nearly always differed.
- Instead of build date, use something like "Year first used".
- Follow that by "First user" or "Inventor" or something.
- "Name".
- "Numbers built" - I would't go there - it will be tough to find that kind of data, let alone finding accurate info.
- And then there's still the sparkies and diseasels...
- Anyway, I suspect the subject will need some mulling over first, to figure out what should all be included in the infobox.- André Kritzinger (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's doable, but I'd suggest the following:
- I was wondering about it as I made the edits last night while working through Category:Rail transport articles needing infoboxes. A lot of the information on more common wheel arrangements will be very different as a number of manufacturers have made different versions for them (especially for arrangements like 4-4-0 or 4-6-2). I would very much like to see infoboxes on all the wheel arrangement articles for the same reasons as we have them on specific locomotive class articles; the infobox helps with consistency of information and shows the technical details in an easy way without cluttering the article body full of tables and tech specs. As to the data in this infobox being duplicated in the article body, that discussion has taken place since infoboxes were first introduced, and the consensus is that it is okay for an infobox to duplicate information because it is a shortened summary of the specific details in the article. The mobile version of Wikipedia knows how to deal with infoboxes that are based on the standard Template:Infobox, it doesn't always display tables in the article body properly because they vary so greatly. Slambo (Speak) 12:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)