Talk:List of preserved locomotives in the United States

development in 2022

Developing this in response to discussion in ongoing AFD about List of locomotives article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locomotives (2nd nomination). --Doncram (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey anonymous editors User:70.189.24.158 and User:23.169.64.51, I hope you can participate in discussion here about how to help develop this list-article. I hope this can be a great list! Note I am trying to cover all "preserved" locomotives in the U.S. (and Canada i guess also) and organize them by U.S. state (and Canadian province). For "preserved" ones, I believe that a more-or-less stable location applies to each one, so they can be organized this way, and I am guessing that readers will like seeing all the ones in each state together. What do you think? --Doncram (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This list, now with more than 60 Colorado entries alone, was developed in part in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locomotives (2nd nomination) which recently closed "Keep". It is incomplete, but is intended to include links to all notable preserved U.S. locomotives which have articles (for which source footnotes here are not required), and to various other redlink or non-linked topics whose notability is supported adequately by sources included here. I think it is already useful, and it will be EASIER rather than harder now to keep wikipedia coverage updated in the big set of related articles about preservation railways, railway museums, and individual locomotives. For example, if a locomotive is transferred from one museum to another, the editor updating will easily see that its location is to be updated here, along with updating or creating information in related articles linked. Without duplication (because the locomotive will always just have one row here) and without omissions. And footnotes here can carry the history of recent moves, so an editor can tell whether a 2016 photo of a given locomotive at one place means it should be covered at the article about that place (not necessarily, if it is documented already that the locomotive was transferred away later). --Doncram (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

More stub drafts

Sorry. I forgot to mention the rest of 70.189.24.158’s drafts. If you click on his user contributions and then in Search for contributions, set the tag filter to ‘only show edits that are page creations’ before clicking search, you will find all of the stub drafts he has created, especially the ones I forgot to mention to you. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This request is about subject previously raised at my Talk page by this non-logged-in editor. Copy-paste of that back-and-forth:

Drafts that need taken care of

Someone has been making all these drafts about steam locomotives without adding links citations or any in-depth info. Just brief descriptions.

For example: Draft:Hampton & Branchville 44, Draft:Cherokee Brick & Tile 1, Draft:Hillcrest Lumber Company 9, Draft:Hillcrest Lumber Company 10, Draft:Phenix Marble Company 1, Draft:Polson Logging Co. 2, Draft:Lowville and Beaver River Railroad 8, Draft:Wilmington and Western 58, and Draft:Canadian Pacific 2839

If you would take care of at least some or one of these drafts, that would be great. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, i have commented at each of those pages similarly and in general suggest working together on the draft list-article instead. Please see my statement at User talk:70.189.24.158#Something about your pages., including where I am asking you to participate using your username, too. Either way, though, thanks for your attention to this area. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In partial response, here, now, I am not sure I want to address requests for me to do work, coming from a non-logged-in editor. For one thing, I cannot reliably contact such a person. Is there a reason why you cannot make a suggestion like this, using a regular Wikipedia account? --Doncram (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Editor notes continuing

Editor notes on status of Colorado coverage

Coverage of Colorado Railroad Museum ones not confirmed.

Coverage of Cripple Creek and Victor Narrow Gauge Railroad may be complete, not confirmed. There is apparently a 5th, but it is to be termed "preserved"? "5th engine of the Cripple Creek and Victor Narrow Gauge Railroad's locomotives, a 1951 General Electric, 4wDE engine that was battery operated for underground mining at the Idarado Mine near Telluride, Colorado. In 2017 the engine was being used by the railroad's track crew."

Completeness of Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad coverage, and determinations of "preserved or not" not confirmed.

Coverage of Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad ones not confirmed. Article mentions a diesel locomotive that was in acquisition.

Coverage of Forney Transportation Museum ones not confirmed.

Missing from the above table are any operational preserved locomotives of the Georgetown Loop Railroad or others of theirs besides Colorado and Southern Railway steam locomotive #9 (on static display).

About Pikes Peak Cog Railway, sourcing is from article, including Abbott (1990). "Pikes Peak Cog Railway" may be informal, while formal name may be The Broadmoor Manitou and Pikes Peak Cog Railway, so the usage above of abbreviation "PPCR", adopted by editor here for convenience, should be reconsidered. Coverage not confirmed.

References

See also

• List of locomotives
• Preserved locomotives in Canada [temporary: see Draft:Preserved locomotives in Canada

To compare

• Category:Preserved steam locomotives of California vs. Category:Locomotives of California vs. Category:Locomotives in California.

Categories which miss Rio Grande 463

• Category:Individual locomotives of the United States, 252 members, not organized by location, not all preserved, includes no redirects. Appears to include just the first three NRHP-listed ones (Omits Rio Grande 463. I have inspected many but not all members to identify Colorado locations).
• Category:Preserved steam locomotives of Colorado (3 members as of June 2022, omits but should include Rio Grande 463)

Other categories

• Category:Railway vehicles on the National Register of Historic Places in Colorado (includes all 4 NRHP bluelink ones listed above, plus non-locomotives)
• Category:Railway locomotives on the National Register of Historic Places (includes all four NRHP bluelink ones)
• Category:Diesel locomotives of the United States, does not identify preserved ones, includes hundreds of classes and/or individuals, not navigable by state
• Category:Steam locomotives of the United States, ditto to diesel category
• Category:Gas turbine locomotives of the United States, ditto
• Category:Electric locomotives of the United States, ditto

Although "Individual locomotives" omits Rio Grande 463, Category:Locomotives does include it through its inclusion of "Railway locomotives on the NRHP" and other ways.

Railway museum articles

Railway museum articles to create or review for identification of more locomotives:

• North Carolina Transportation Museum
• South Carolina Railway Museum (currently a redlink, article is needed)

Other notes

Heisler locomotive article has table of survivors (preserved?) out of roughly 625 Heislers produced, of which some 35 still exist. Approximately eight of these survivors are currently operational.

To be merged

Significant tables/materials yet to be merged, as of December 2022, are now moved from draft list-article, and are going to:

• Draft talk:Preserved locomotives in the United States\Travel Town ones to be merged
• Draft talk:Preserved locomotives in the United States\Union Pacific ones to be merged, which includes a section on "Preserved steam locomotives of the UP"

Those are now actually at

• Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States\Travel Town ones to be merged and
• Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States\Union Pacific ones to be merged

--Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So that the rest of the list-article is simple and clear, for it to be promoted to mainspace. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved these two pages to Draft space [leaving redirects behind. --Doncram]. As orphaned talk pages, they might otherwise be deleted and I'm sure you want to preserve this content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, hmm, the edit summaries are confusing to me, like "Liz moved page Draft talk:Preserved locomotives in the United States\Travel Town ones to be merged to Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States\Travel Town ones to be merged: Move to Draft space", when in my view as "Draft talk" subpages they are in "Draft" space broadly. Okay, now they are subpages in "Draft" space, and there are redirects from the "Draft talk" subpages to the "Draft" subpages (and the switch can be missed easily, as there is no bubble or other notice given when you are brought to a redirect target).

Hmm, if there was a danger that a bot would have deleted a Draft talk subpage, because there was no corresponding Draft subpage, wouldn't it work instead to create a redirect from the Draft subpage to the Draft talk subpage? I think it seems more natural to keep them as subpages from this page (which is a Draft talk page currently). Like how, for List of museum ships, there is ongoing discussion at Talk:List of museum ships which is facilitated by use of a Talk subpage, Talk:List of museum ships/Options. --22:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyhow, User:Liz, thanks, indeed I do want them to be preserved! And thanks for probably heading off a bot deletion goround. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, but when the current "Draft:" list-article is promoted to mainspace, what are now "Draft" subpages need to be moved to "Talk" subpages. While it would be more obvious (i think?) that "Draft talk" subpages need to be moved to "Talk" subpages. I wonder what happens, what is suggested to the mover, when moving any page that has subpages. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

List-article rows effectively include all sources in linked articles that are summarized

This article was turned down for promotion to mainspace, when IMHO it shud have been accepted already. Maybe there were other things (which might have since gotten resolved in subsequent editing, or not?), but the main thing that needs to be understood more broadly, is what the name of this discussion section states: "List-article rows effectively include all sources in linked articles that are summarized".

Note the AFC review decline stated (in templated text), that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." and the reviewer provided further clarification in a comment (thanks for at least that!): "Whether it's notable, I don't know - but a lot of it still remains entirely unsourced." left by by AFC review User:Mattdaviesfsic, on 4 January 2023.

Mattdaviesfsic, thanks for reviewing, but could you identify any single factoid, at all, that is "unsourced" and that you feel requires explicit sourcing here? My main point is (which I will develop here in Talk if it seems helpful) is that everything I put in comes from a source either directly identified and cited, or sources in the linked Wikipedia articles. It is not required (and it is not good IMHO) to paste in some or all of the inline references from a linked article, when a Wikipedia list-article item (i.e. a row in a table as here) provides a summary of the article. Not everyone has to understand this, but AFC reviewers of submitted list-articles need to be advised.

Also, the topic of "preserved locomotives" is so obviously notable, I think, that I don't think any broad discussion article about "Preserved locomotives in America" needs to be found and cited explicitly.

I stated some of this in reply on my Talk page, to inform others of discussion here, but hope we can continue here. Thanks! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Doncram, because of the nature of the article (locomotives in preservation), I would say that every row needs to have a source (very few of which actually do). If they don't have a source, then this be seen by some to be original research, which will just be removed. Thus, each loco only needs one source (two would be a luxury, but not obligatory) - even if that means reusing some of the references for different locos. Of course, if you wish, you could try and find a reference from the loco's WP page (if there is one to say that it has been preserved. It's not the total number of references I am worried about, but each row having its own source to verify that information. I hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Hmm, okay this is mainly about your questioning whether each of the locomotives is preserved or not? Like the whole list-article is a statement "These are locomotives and all of these are preserved, in the United States," and you question that? And maybe further you question whether all the assertions in the "description" column are accurate or not?

Okay, take row CA-08 for example, which provides a pic of C.P. Huntington, its location ("Static display, California State Railroad Museum"), and a fact or brief summary about it: "First locomotive of Central Pacific Railroad."

What policies or guidelines are relevant? Hmm, i go to wp:RS about "reliable sourcing", and I find there the following: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, ...". Is there any material in the row that you challenge, or that you believe is likely to be challenged? If so, what specific assertion, explicit or implicit, is that? I am asking you, Mattdaviesfsic, when you personally see this row, do you yourself actually disbelieve anything about it? Honestly, you, yourself, do you believe that the locomotive C.P. Huntington is preserved, or do you not believe that? (I personally believe it. And further, I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that is violated, but maybe that's getting ahead too far.) The question I am asking you, is, for real, is there anything about this row that you, you personally, actually question? I hope you don't mind me challenging you on this here. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 12:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:VNT - things have to be verified, not just adding it because you "know it to be true". I have to question the descriptions because, believe it or not, some people add things that may or may not be true! Unfortunately, policy is policy, and "belief" can't source statements on Wikipedia. I'm sure it's not too hard to find a source for each locomotive to prove it's preserved at a given place, even if it's a heritage railway website etc.

Any other questions, let me know. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You might also like to see this page, which is similar, where everything is fully cited: List_of_rolling_stock_preserved_on_the_Severn_Valley_Railway Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Hmm, that list-article looks better, overall, than this one, though I am not sure that is relevant. However, I see the row "7714" there has no inline citation. And the 7714 row includes assertions such as that the locomotive was built in a particular year. What do you have to say about that? Doncram (talk,contribs) 13:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't monitored this page for a bit, so other editors have been working on it to keep it sourced. The fact that just one - out of quite a few - is unsourced, is (if anything) an achievement. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Although, having looked at it, the 7714 ref is just in a different column, which you might not have seen; so it is sourced. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a ref in the "Livery" column for 7714, yes, apparently supporting that the livery(?) is "BR Unlined Black, early crest". It doesn't go to an online source, btw. There is apparently no citation supporting assertion that loco was built in 1930. If an editor doubted the 1930 date, they should add a tag, "citation needed" or "dubious" or similar. Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, not every source needs to be online. Rail magazines and books are always helpful and reliable (on the whole). I will put a note on the talk page now, to see if someone has that magazine. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You can do that at Talk, i suppose, but I suggest to you that in general you should only make such a request if you think that specific citation is needed. To me, it seems clear that some editor, the editor who put in the description of the livery, did have the source, when they put it in. It's not necessary to get a second editor to get a copy of the source and verify that the first editor did it right, unless there's reason to question that description of the livery. In fact, it seems unhelpful or, in a minor way, wp:disruptive to the building of Wikipedia, that on the Talk page you are calling for someone to perform an unnecessary task. Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, I have now "subscribed" to this discussion section, so I will be notified of any changes here. Could you also please "subscribe"? Then we do not need to wp:ping each other or post notices at our User Talk pages. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 13:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The page is already on my watchlist. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, great, thanks. And, okay, i go to VNT and I see statements like "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable." (emphasis added by me). It doesn't say "verified". I personally believe that the assertion "CP Huntingdon is preserved" is verififiable (and true). Could you please show me more specifically, what in the wp:VNT policy statement is not met here? Doncram (talk,contribs) 13:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability: In Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source. If you believe it's true, find a source to back it up! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not answering the question. What assertion, if any, on that row, do you not believe? Doncram (talk,contribs) 13:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not about whether I believe it or not, because that is original research. It's about whether the information is available in a reliable, published source. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No it is not original research. wp:NOR states "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". What fact appears to be one made up by me, or in any way seems to be a creative synthesis or whatever? Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have the feeling that this "debate" is not going anywhere. 10mmsocket would tell you all about OR, having spent his life on WP getting rid of it. I think it's pretty simple, to be honest: find a source for it, or remove it from the table, because it's not been verified. That's pretty much the core policy of WP, and if you don't agree with it... well, there's not a lot you can do really. Sorry! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

So, here's an idea for quite a few of the locos listed. If you search the NRHP in the right way you can obtain quite detailed about each individual locomotive within its register. Each loco has a page, and thus each loco has a reliable and verifiable source that can go onto that loco's row in the table. That's a big start - there are 700+ records pulled up by this search. Remember, the onus should be on the page author to add specific referencing information, so at the very least the reference should point to the individual listing and not to the NRHP home page. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think i have "met" 10mmsocket before, nice to meet you! (BTW, i don't see you in the member list at Wikipedia:WikiProject NRHP, please feel free to "join" by adding your username. Whether you're listed there or not, please also feel free to post at wt:NRHP.) I have spent a Wikipedia career mostly on NRHP topics, and in fact I think i am the principal author of Wikipedia:WikiProject NRHP's coverage of finding and referencing NRHP-related sources in its wp:NRHPHELP (a resources page). Indeeed I do think it is very good to make an effort to find and use the NRHP registration document, when developing an article about any NRHP-listed place, providing a direct pointer to the specific document, as you suggest.

I don't think it is helpful or necessary to add 700+ NRHP references to this list-article though. Is there a statement in any Wikipedia guideline or policy that an inline reference in every row of a table is required? And, by the way, there are apparently 3,383 list-articles in Category:List-Class National Register of Historic Places articles, most of which do not have an inline reference on every row. (Take National Register of Historic Places listings in Sacramento County, where CP Huntingdon would appear if it were separately listed on the NRHP, for example. On its relatively few rows where the "Description" column is non-empty, i do see several having an NRHP document reference, but I see five which do not.)

Also I don't think that the policy Wikipedia:No original research is being properly understood here. Mattdavisfsich, have you read, or could you please read, the second paragraph there? Doesn't it mean that an inline reference is not needed on the CP Huntington row here and the 7714 row there? Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't have to be in every single row (it could be in a paragraph under a heading, for instance) - but everything which is contained in your table must be referenced in some way. That's the point I'm trying to make. Otherwise you could be making it up, if no source was given. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Relying on a Wikipedia reader to trust that a link to a claim on another Wikipedia page is correct is wrong. That's what WP:CIRCULAR is for. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. If you have reliable sources supporting a claim in an original article, then those sources should be carried over to the list article so the reader doesn't have to click through to be able to verify. The link to the source to verify is directly there in the list, not indirectly in the target article. Given that a lot of entries in this list have individual articles, it's not rocket science to pull through the appropriate references to support the information stated in the list entry. Not to do so though goes against WP:OR. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging here. I haven't seen wp:CIRCULAR used to make that argument before, and it does not seem to specifically address the situation here. If there is a claim here that is unusual, that readers would likely question, I agree that the source in the original article should be carried over and attached in an inline reference to the statement of that claim.

"We", the Wikipedia conglomerate author, are asserting that CP Huntingdon is a preserved locomotive, as part of summarizing what "We" are also saying at C.P. Huntingdon, a link which the reader can obviously click on, to reach more information, such as a photo of the locomotive sitting in its museum. Much of the info conveyed by that article is supported by its nine inline citations, but there is other information, broadly, provided too, (e.g. what is conveyed by the photo, like that the locomotive sits in front of a big window). (BTW, note there is certainly not an inline citation at the end of each sentence.) Suppose the assertion that the locomotive is preserved is supported by one of the nine references, that the locomotive was purchased in 1863 by another, and that it has a 4-2-4T wheel configuration by a third source. Must the row here include three inline references, then? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It only really needs one to say where it is, which is the bit which gets "wikifiddled" if there's no source there. If you want to get it up to a Featured List, after being accepted, then you would probably have to bring in all 3. Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here by Mattdaviesfsic on my talk page. I would not have accepted this draft either, because the sourcing is hilariously bad. locomotive.fandom.com? Worthless for sourcing, that's a fandom wiki and inherently unreliable. rrpicturearchives is no better. rgusrail is another sps, and also states "Updates to this site ceased on 13th July 2020." All the bad sourcing needs to go. I personally think this article serves no purpose that cannot be better served by categories, but that's another discussion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I accept all that Trainsandotherthings just said (including that it's another discussion, about whether or not a loco list is sufficiently complementary to what categories can do, etc.). About bad sourcing present, yes. I'd prefer to be seeking better sourcing wherever T or others say it is needed, for the moment, rather than deleting those entries, for now, though. Another grouping where sourcing might be an issue, is the set of red-link items (have no linked articles) so far supported only by mention of being NRHP-listed, which suffices IMO, but if others do not agree, could also be a separate discussion.

By developing this list-article, I rather hope in the future to demonstrate to Trainsandotherthings and other skeptics at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locomotives (2nd nomination), that having a loco list, at least for "preserved" ones (which can be organized by location and which are often/usually well-documented), is obviously valid and good.

This discussion is needed, though, about the items like C.P.Huntington where a bundle of citations could be pasted over from its linked article, but i think that need not, and should not, be done. This being a sticking point here and at other misunderstood list-articles at AFC. --Doncram (talk,contribs) Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

questions about a few

A few open questions about items in the list:

• for the one currently listed as CO-70, "PPCR No. 8", it is called a "locomotive" at PPCR article, but it looks like a railcar?
• for the one currently listed as CO-73, "PPCR No. 11", is this a railcar?

There are more question marks in the list article in hidden comments, but none showing. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)