Talk:Pennsylvania Railroad K4 class

Oooops!

Folks, my apologies for accidentally removing the section on streamlined K4s loco's. I have no idea how I managed that, but it certainly wasn't intentional. I shall be more careful in future. Sorry once again! Zzrbiker 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As a penance, I have put in the beginnings of an infobox, based on the details at steamlocomotive.com. Feel free to add/modify/remove altogether Zzrbiker 12:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The "in fiction" section

Okay, time to take this to discussion. I've seen this information added and removed many times in the past, and now it's been readded right after being removed. I'm of the mind that this is trivial information that doesn't help to explain the topic and is only marginally relevant, and therefore it should be removed from the article. Thoughts? Slambo (Speak) 15:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The section is also completely unreferenced, both here and at the linked article. That alone, IMO, means it should go. I suspect the information should exist at the Thomas article rather than here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Further searching turned up no references other than fan speculation. Furthermore, that season of the TV show hasn't even aired yet. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think these Thomas references in general do nothing for the article. They introduce a fictional element to what is otherwise a non-fiction article and skew the focus away from actual rail transport. I also have the same problem with articles on locomotives that get peppered with details of all the manufacturers who offer scale models of that class. My compromise suggestion would be a "See also" section with a single line reference to where such information exists in another page, assuming that we do in fact establish the Pennsy K4s exists in the Thomas universe. - Zzrbiker (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot less of a problem with the modelling information, except inasmuch as it's hard for Wikipedia to keep it correct, up-to-date and comprehensive, without it becoming a how-to section. Ideally I'd rather external-link to a site that discusses the model information in more detail. NPOV also makes it hard to be really helpful here; a site more free to editorialize would do better with this.

Furthermore, for such a popular locomotive as the K4s, the history of it in model form may be just as long as that of the full-size locomotive. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - given that the removal of Thomas detail seems to continue to invite reinstatement with yet more unreferenced and speculative non-facts, I've gone with my suggestion of a "see also" section which hopefully might 'deflect' rather than 'block' these edits. -Zzrbiker (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PRR K4s. 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/20041216073707/http://www.steamlocomotive.com:80/pacific/prr/ to http://www.steamlocomotive.com/pacific/prr/

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) 21:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)