This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Dan Brucker, loudmouthpiece of the Metro North Commuter Railroad, has sensationalized a dreary forgotten powerhouse service platform designed for storage of maintenance-of-way equipment as the Waldorf-Astoria "secret entrance". The heavyweight baggage car (reporting mark MNCX 002 mw) he claims to be "bullet-proof" is actually converted to maintenance-of-way from what would otherwise be an obsolete discard cast-off, which was certainly NOT ever associated with presidential service - no such documentation exists. It is the opposite end of the spectrum from opulence such as the Ferdinand Magellan US 001. It's simply a steel sided baggage car, mandated for use after the devastating passenger coach fire beneath Park Avenue which resulted in banning steam operations and conversion to electric. The glass on the car is the safety glass technology of the thirties, two panes of glass with chicken wire annealed between them, designed to remain in the frame after an accident - and is is certainly NOT "bullet-proof". The nearby freight elevator is by no means able to accommodate Franklin D. Roosevelt twin windshield Packard touring coach. History records the limousine was strapped to a flat-car and covered by a tarp on long rail journeys and would have been driven off at an above-ground siding slip track ramp and driven, without the president, to its assigned post. This lie purported by Dan Brucker has appeared on Fox News, The New York Post, The History Channel's Underground - New York and a bumper piece about the real Cobina Wright Society Circus on PBS History Detectives. Dan Brucker is revealing half-truth "secrets" which don't exist.
The question is how do we present this in the article to correct the misperception?Disneywizard (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It is currently in alphabetic order, by the yachts name. That seemed odd to me. I think it would be more apt to be useful if it were sorted chronologically. Luckily, this was a sortable table. Unfortunately one of the dates had [[circa|c.]] prior to the date, which screwed up the sorting. I put the circa after the date.
Alternatively, if its native order were chronological, a prefix like circa wouldn't matter as much.
I performed a quick fix I am not entirely happy with. Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Merger of Army One, Navy One, Coast Guard One (2013)
Consensus is not to merge. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Merger discussion of three small articles pertaining to Presidential aircraft pbp 03:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Permastubs, unsourced, not independently notable of the President, and certainly not independently notable of this page. There are only a few KBs of content between the three articles. Coast Guard One and Navy One focus on only a few flights (one CG2 flight, one Navy 1 flight), none of which are independently notable and really are just trivia. Devoting whole articles to just one or two flights is undue coverage. Had been merged here, but merge was fought by User:BilCat. AfD was improperly NAC-closed pbp 03:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments - I'm not sure why an RfC is necessary here, as the Merge process is usually sufficient itself. I should point out that I was not, as claimed by User:Purplebackpack89, the only user who opposed the original undiscussed move of Army One to Aircraft of the President of the United States by User:Purplebackpack89, and the merging of the other articles there. I only implemented the splits pers several discussions. The original merge was done under Bold, which is allowable, but there was no concensus to support it at that time, and it was decided to re-split the articles, under WP:BRD. An admin even stated that he would undo the merge at that time, but apparently forgot about it (easy to do between real life and a heavy wiki-workload!) Another user re-opened the discussion this week, and the previous consensus to re-split was implemented at this time. Also, this article was never the original target of the merges, that being Aircraft of the President of the United States. That article was redirected here per discussions as the best target of a redirect after the merge was undone. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Most of the discussions didn't receive enough community imput, they were carried out in a very partisan manner on a WikiProject's talk page. GNG is irrelevant to a merge discussion (things that pass GNG can still be merged); and really GNG hasn't been proven per WP:BURDEN. Nor has notability independent of other stuff. You've gone around saying "this passes GNG" when there isn't enough evidence to say so. And Merge was winning out at the AfD, before it was improperly closed before seven days had passed pbp 17:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The members of a project are part of the community also, and everything was discussed on open talk pages, including at Talk:Aircraft of the President of the United States. I agree that the AFD was closed improperly by a non-admin, but I believe you can appeal it. Since you were the one who chose to use AFD as a merge discussion, appeal was probably your next best option, not an RfC, which just muddles the whole Merge discussion. - BilCat (talk)
Anything can be RfCed, including merge discussions. Also, why should an entire article be devoted to the one time George W. Bush used a Navy plane, especially when there are other articles devoted to planes he used, and even an article devoted to where he flew the plane to (Mission Accomplished speech)? pbp 18:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Using AFDs and RFcs when a simple merge discussion would have sufficed is overkill, especially considering it probably would have been wiser to have done so in lieu of being bold in the first place. The Navy One article is notable because it was used just once,and garnered significant media coverage. An article on the politicizing of a speech really isn't the place to cover the details of the use of the callsigns or the aircraft. I and others have suggested other options to merging here. - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose All merges, each topic is notable in it's own right. I would support any merge of any existing "two" articles other than Air force two, to the relevent "one" article. RyanVesey 19:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Um, that's already happened... pbp 20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment Note that there is a merge tag on Executive One as well, a merge which I also oppose. RyanVesey 19:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Tag has been removed pbp 20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as callsigns are nothing directly to do with an overview article on presidential vehicles or transportation, I would support BilCat suggestions of a Callsigns of the President of the United States article which could provide an overview of the subject and then we could review if the child articles are needed but that is outside of this merge request. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Weak support - All the articles involved, including this article (Transportation of the President of the United States) are rather small. The three call sign articles being discussed here are very small ... it looks like one of those call signs has never even been used (and another was used just once). Readers will not be impacted by putting those 3 articles into this Transportation article in a new section. Contrast with Air Force One which has enough material to be its own article. Query: is there some trove of information about Coast Guard One that is not yet included in that article? If not, it really doesn't need its own article. --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Do the aircraft other than Air Force One have specific ones in use? I know that Air Force One looks like there are two specific one now in use and that is backed up by sourcing. I think that's an important distinction if the other branches don't have this policy -- although I assume they would. Marine One in particular seems pretty detailed and my first impression is that each of them are notable. I feel like there may be more sources out there for the others - as is they are minimally sourced - but a short article doesn't mean that it can't be notable. Dreambeaver(talk) 23:17, 18 February 2013 (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.
Coast Guard One has been used ZERO times. Coast Guard Two, ONCE. Permastub that will never have enough content for its own article. pbp 04:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose the article has been viewed "3506 times in the last 30 days", so clearly of note as a stand alone article. Also note a callsign is not really a mode of transport. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment - which is twice as much as this article "1784 times in the last 30 days." MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hit count is not a valid argument for keeping an article. If the title Coast Guard One is a title people search for, they will search for it just as much if it redirects here as if it's a stand-alone article. You haven't weighed in on the question of "is there enough content in this article to justify it standing alone", to which the answer is clearly no pbp 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
One flight does not warrant a whole article, sorry. Undue weight. Current article is also a permastub. What little content there is can be covered in this or the article on the Mission Accomplished speech. pbp 04:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose the article has been viwed "4702 times in the last 30 days" so clearly notable as a stand alone article. Also note a callsign is not really a mode of transport. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hit count is not a valid argument for keeping an article. If the title Coast Guard One is a title people search for, they will search for it just as much if it redirects here as if it's a stand-alone article. You haven't weighed in on the question of "is there enough content in this article to justify it standing alone", to which the answer is clearly no pbp 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - See above. - BilCat (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
GNG doesn't preclude merger pbp 22:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)