Talk:Diesel Electric railmotor (VR)

Original Research

The box in the section Preservation claims that "this section possibly contains original research". I don't think that collating and summarising a list with the status of 10 pieces of rolling stock could be seen as serving to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Therefore, I propose to remove this box, and discuss any issues here on the discussion page. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You have quoted and linked to the synthesis policy, likely by mistake. Although synthesis is related to original research, it is not the same thing. The Preservation section of this article is tagged because it was probably added to Wikipedia by somebody with first-hand knowledge of those cars' whereabouts (i.e. a railway employee or railfan), rather than a Wikipedian compiling facts from published, trustable sources, such as a newspaper or magazine. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 07:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought that you object to combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I think a box that requests references would be fine, but I still cannot see any original research in this section. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you still cannot see synthesis in this section. You are confusing original research with synthesis (which is confusingly also defined at Wikipedia:No original research). "Combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources," as you just said, is synthesis, and not original research. Synthesis is not the problem with the tagged section. It can't be; that section doesn't even have references.

Take another look at Wikipedia:No original research, skipping over the "Synthesis of published material" section as that particular section is unrelated to the problem here. To summarize, the problems here are as follows:

• The section lacks references.
• Other editors could reasonably assume that the section was added to Wikipedia by somebody with first-hand knowledge (a.k.a. original research), rather than somebody paraphrasing what they've learned from reliable published sources (e.g. journals, books, magazines, newspapers, reputable websites). – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diesel Electric railmotor (VR). 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/20080711160843/http://www.victorianrailways.net:80/motive%20power/derm.html to http://www.victorianrailways.net/motive%20power/derm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Article title

If anyone has access to the citations used in the article (or other sources too), do they refer to this particular type of railmotor as “Diesel Electric Rail Motor”, “Diesel Electric Railmotor”, or its current name or something else? Also, as per the other Victorian Railways train articles, shouldn’t VR be fully expanded and/or put at the front of the article title? Fork99 (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Also consider the name of DRC railcar which is another VR train regarding its abbreviation/capitalisation. Fork99 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I also don’t believe that the names without the disambiguator “(VR)” are taken by any other article. Fork99 (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fork99, This one should be "Petrol/Diesel Electric Rail Motor". Originally built as a Petrol Electric Rail Motor (PERM), later converted to a Diesel Electric Rail Motor (DERM). They are commonly know in Victoria by the term DERM's. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The other one is a Diesel Rail Car (DRC). Commonly know in Victoria as just DRC's. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)