Talk:East Broad Top Railroad Mikado locomotives

development

User:Xboxtravis7992, thank you for developing this article, i think it's a great contribution! I happen to have a related big list-article in development, Draft:Preserved_locomotives_in_the_United_States (which User:Mattdaviesfsic (AfC reviewer here) has commented at, and I think that I found my way here by glancing at their contributions). And I just added a short summary of this at what is currently Draft:Preserved_locomotives_in_the_United_States#Pennsylvania. Could you possibly please take a look there, at least to check see if I made any incorrect statements or omit anything really-really-very-important things to say?

Mention in the summary there of specific locomotives will probably get axed, although I wonder if one or two should get individual rows in the big list above. Anyhow, to refer to them specifically I am planning to consider two of them as being named "East Broad Top Railroad #12" and "East Broad Top Railroad #18", which I think is consistent with the "East Broad Top motive mower roster" in East Broad Top Railroad. So for example (with complication for the # sign), I would put an {{anchor}} for "East Broad Top Railroad No. 12" into this article, create redirect East Broad Top Railroad No. 12 to go to East Broad Top Railroad#East Broad Top Railroad No. 12, and refer to it thereafter using whatever-you-call-it-hiding-techniquepipelinking as East Broad Top Railroad #12. Is this naming of them as proper nouns correct, would you say? I see you actually do use "East Broad Top #12" in a proper noun way already.

About naming and capitalization in Wikipedia in general, though, I think that we are not supposed to use all capitals in article names (or section titles), unless the terms should be capitalized already. So I think this article should be moved from "East Broad Top Railroad Mikado Locomotives" to "East Broad Top Railroad Mikado locomotives".

Please also see Talk:East Broad Top Railroad#capitalizing section titles about some section titles there needing de-capitalizations IMO.

Also, I notice this is not yet linked from the East Broad Top Railroad article, by the way.

Thanks again for creating this article, and I hope you'll keep going on more. I would definitely welcome your help on my big draft list! I will likely also ping you and Mattdaviesfsic from a discussion elsewhere (as I personally think technically my big draft list should have been promoted already, not denied promotion, by Mattdaviesfsic, and maybe I think similarly about their previous 1 or 2 denial decisions here...again to be discussed elsewhere, and not a big deal). cheers, --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was... . Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

---

The merge proposal., combined East Broad Top Railroad Mikado locomotives with East Broad Top 12 and East Broad Top 16

• I was not aware when creating this page that articles for East Broad Top 12 and East Broad Top 16 both existed already. Would it make sense to consider merging those topics into this? It does feel redundant to have a page for the six collective engines, then two dedicated to other engines of the same group. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • No active discussion or objections over a roughly nine day period since merger was proposed. Closing discussion and proceeding to merge pages. --Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2024 (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.

Sub-heading class name

While looking over this article, it seems that section heading "12-28 1⁄4 E-1" is more than a bit cumbersome for the average reader. May I suggest shortening these classes as: 12-28, 12-32, and 12-34? While the full class name may technically be correct it's overkill to try to explain 1/4, E, and 1 mean. Therefore the headings would be:

• Class 12-28 locomotive (it's not a "series" as EBT had only one)
  
• Class 12-32 series
  
• Class 12-34 series

Blue Riband► 02:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I originally had the class names down as "Class 12", "Class 14" and "Class 16" following the Old Eastie website format. However, I chose to update it to the Baldwin numbers following this pattern in this document in the EBT archive:https://ebtarchives.catalogaccess.com/archives/1115

If another primary source can be found that the EBT used different model classification that could be used, but it seems the railroad recognized the engines by their Baldwin models as far as I can tell. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, but that recognition comes from a technical, engineering standpoint. As the article stands at this moment I think the present headings give far too much technical detail for the average reader.Blue Riband► 16:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It might need more research then. I feel the prior system from the Old Eastie website is likely an informal railfan name. The blueprint names are the technical names the railroad and Baldwin both had on record. Personally I would err on retaining the technical names, even if they may seem confusing since they are precise to how the railroad seemed to know them.

But, I don't know if the railroad ever had more informal names for the engines. A search through historic records might reveal an appropriate name for the various subclasses. Or maybe the article can be reformatted for each engine's history individual instead of lumping by manufacturer class, since the engine numbers are pretty well known, official and simple identifiers? Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)