Talk:Chesapeake and Ohio class M-1

A fact from Chesapeake and Ohio class M-1 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Chesapeake and Ohio class M1 steam turbine locomotive, built in 1947 to haul the Chessie streamliner, could go up to eleven?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chessie (train).

Wikipedia

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wheel arrangement?

This is given (unsourced) in the infobox as 2-C1+2-C1-B. The first ref gives the rather more believable 2-D+2-D-2. It also states eight traction motors, so presumably eight powered axles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have only seen 2-C1+2-C1-B elsewhere on Wikipedia. Let me double-check my sources (I'm not an expert on wheel arrangement so I can't parse this stuff very well). Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be the case (per [1]) that only three of the axles on each of the driving bogies was powered. See also the not-necessarily-reliable [2]. Lamb appears to assume that all four axles were powered. The evidence is unclear. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the information altogether, but it's present in other articles as well. Mackensen (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why they'd build a 2-C1+2-C1-B. Possibly 2-C1+2-D-2, as I can understand why alongside the ashpan isn't the best place for a traction motor. It's also quite awkward to fit traction motors to wheels of mixed diameter, for control issues under wheelslip. With this many powered though, I guess it wasn't an issue.

Doug Self's site is generally reliable and has a technical understanding that Wikipedia doesn't. However as he doesn't usually credit sources, it's held to not be up to the standards of a WP reference. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a book which says 2-C1+2-C1-B: [3]. Again, not sure if I'd trust it. Lamb is an academic source, but Lamb reads like supposition. I don't know how much to read into Popular Mechanics indicating that three of the four wheels on each bogie were "drive wheels", but that would seem to support the theory. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this discussion; I'm not sure which of Hollingsworth's books that would be but it does make me feel more comfortable citing Miller. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see 2-C1+2-C1-B as a more detailed subset of a vague 2-D+2-D-2 from just the bogie appearance.

As an aside, were the powered C1 frames bogies, or mounted directly on the main frames? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons link

This is so not worth arguing about, but I'm honestly curious about which part of the WP:MOS insists that a commons link be (a) a box and (b) in the References section, instead of down in External links where it properly belongs. I've always done it this way and it makes sense. It also avoids the formatting problem where it's pushed down beneath the infobox. It's not a reference, it's an external link. Mackensen (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects appears to support my position. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe read the 2nd paragraph too.

Box links to sister projects aren't placed in any section. They're CSS-floated to the side, so they're (for formatting purposes) outside of the text flow altogether. For this reason, not because "sister links are external links", they are placed in the last section, whatever that is. Otherwise their formatting fights with the following section header. In most cases, this is indeed ELs, hence the rather sloppy wording of the MOS. Note that MOS is quite specific, "don't create an EL section solely to hold a Commons link".

Your interpretation here seems to be claiming that one of two things should happen:

If there are other ELs, then use the Commons box template.
If there happen to be no other ELs, even though there is no other change intended to the Commons linkage, then use a radically different style of sister link, placed in a completely different location.

How does the second help readers? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the second paragraph, which talks about a box. I read it very carefully. It says "Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates." I agree; those look terrible. That's why I made it inline. Hence, not a box. Inline templates are a common practice when there are formatting concerns which make boxes impractical. I don't believe that this is at all confusing to readers. I think the readers may be more confused as to why a commons box is floating amorphously somewhere to the right of the references section and beneath the infobox. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have dredged up a plausible external link which renders this discussion hopefully academic. There's still the far more vexed question of wheel-arrangement. Unfortunately very few sources have addressed the question, probably because the locomotives had such a short service life. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]