Talk:Passenger car (rail)
|Passenger car (rail) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Delisted good article|
|WikiProject Trains / Passenger trains||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|To-do list for Passenger car (rail):|
I'm planning on moving the "variations" sections back into the main car types section. Many of the cars in the main types section do not even exist anymore, while the "variations" are common today. Why separate out the new from the old? Don't understand at all. Fourdee 07:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
References? There aren't any (yet)
In case you're wondering where the references are on this article, there aren't any. This article is built from my own experience of twenty years of building models of American trains and railroads. As I find references that should be included, I will add them. slambo 17:21, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, there's a reference. Now that I'm adding more information on railroading practices outside North America, I need the references to look up the data. slambo 01:55, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
2005 copyright? Yes.
The Classic Trains reference is one that I just picked up today at my local hobby shop. As it's a periodical, the cover date (and therefore the copyright date) is a little bit in the future. The copyright date all over this publication is 2005, so that's what I put in the references. slambo 03:28, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
What about armoured trains and their infantry cars? I think the article should have a mention of those. Also it should be noted that sometimes various totalitarism regimes used freight cars to transport people, especially prisoners. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, military hospital trains as well. But, my original intent was to write about commercial and not military applications. I guess I could add a section on military uses... B-) slambo 02:08, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Please do that. I think if this article is to be featured, we need at least a brief section on various military uses involving human transportation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There's a start with a couple photos from WWI of hospital trains. Now I need to find some more information and photos of other troop cars, like the cars that were converted from box cars. slambo 19:28, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I hate to leave this section so slim, but I've got to stop now to have dinner. I will be adding more to those listed as well as finding information on others. slambo 02:43, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Featured article status
Okay, so there were a few objections, I'm working on them. Unfortunately, the entire discussion was removed from the WP:FAC and archives page, so it's a good thing that I copied them into the todolist here. Once I resolve these objections, I'll likely renominate the article. slambo 16:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- The discussion was restored to the nominations page in time for one more objection that I haven't included everything that I now intend to include in the article. Yes, I'm still adding to it; right now I'm reading through some additional source materials to determine what needs to be added. Now that we're past Thanksgiving, I should have some more time in the evenings to work on it. The FAC discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations#Passenger car (at least for the next month or so). slambo 16:18, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- It's now at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/November_2004#Passenger_car Petersam 19:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could someone also add recent prices for a typical car? How much does one of these things cost?
- I'd still like to see a mention of the smaller (mostly deep south) railroads that offer mixed service occasionally. Amtrak is not the only game in town when it comes to passenger trains in the US (aside from excursion/tourist) User:Pzg Ratzinger
I removed the following text from the article:
- ==Seating plans==
- The predominant floor plans are comprised of vis-a-vis resp. face to face seats, seating rows resp. face to back with split orientation (half in each direction) for trains operated in both directions and a combination of those principles. In regional transport we can find seats aligned with the tracks to give more room to the standing passengers. In scenic trains seats are beeing orientied some degrees to the window are used. Some design variants have curved banks of seats to form a lounge. Flip flop seats that can be changed from face to face to face to back orientation are not used much due to its weights and consequences of the additional mechanism.
While this information could still be valuable, I don't think it's worded very well here. Besides, the seating arrangements are different for each car type, and this text deals more with coaches than other types. It seems to me that seating arrangements are better described on the car type pages themselves and not here. slambo 20:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Talgo references to inline footnote style. The other references I'm not familiar with so I'll leave it to someone else to work them inline. n2xjk 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Good Article Review
Has now been delisted by 3-0. LuciferMorgan 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article is a substantial crap, because:
- it's been written by somebody knowing rails only in the US and (which are far backwards than Europe in railway technology since decades) and Britain
- when dealing of "modern" years, it gives much attention to "tilting" trains, which are dealt extensively in separate articles here, and little to technology of standard passenger cars used today
- it has pictures placed so that they create much blank lines
- it's bad written (sometimes using contracted forms such as "wasn't" which are not worthy in any encyclopedia). --Attilios (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:OP-14522.jpg
The image Image:OP-14522.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
merge with coach (rail)
It's a no brainer - they are the same thing. I'll merge into this article since it's bigger, (and more people live in the US than UK? what do other english speaking peoples call them), also there is a presedent eg "railroad tie" over "sleeper", "switch" over "point" etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- done that merge..
"More people live in the US than the UK" - arrrrggghhh!!! Give me something to bite on! As someone based in the US, this makes me ashamed of my fellow-countrymen because this is a typical arrogant American-centric viewpoint. There are MANY times more "International English" speakers (based more closely on English-English) than speakers of American-English. American-English, for example, is the only form of English that saw a unilateral change in spellings (thanks to Noah Webster for that particularly confusion).
As for this particular page, as a rail enthusiast of many years, I can confirm that American rail terminology is in the minority worldwide, compared with the terms used by rail experts who speak international forms of English. Please also remember that the American rail system is much smaller (on a per-head-of-population-basis than in many other countries - partly because America decimated its rail systems following the advent of cheap air travel). So this arrogant decision to merge pages in order to make "carriage" or "coach" subservient to the predominantly American term, "car" (which most of the rest of the English-speaking world reserve to describe an automobile) - is indefensible. "Car" WAS used occasionally in British steam-era rail terminology but is virtually unknown in modern UK rail parlance.
A generic world-view page should be written in International-English, majoring on international terminology, not American terminology. It is then perfectly correct - under Wikipedia guidelines - to have an American "local-view" page written in American-English and giving more detail using American terms (such as car) and using American spellings (z instead of s, for example).
It is virtually impossible to accomplish this level of detail within one page because the rail terminology in America is so different in almost every respect to the rest of the world. Besides car/coach/carriage, some other examples based on comparisons with UK terminology: switch (US) v points (UK); railroad (US) v railway (UK); consist (US) v rake (UK); switcher (US) v shunter (UK) ... I could go on, but you get the point.
I deleted the subsection 'parlour car' because it's duplicated in the section Passenger_car_(rail)#Coach .. however that section calls them 'compartment cars', and I though parlour cars were of the 'open' type. Can someone (from North America) check this so it makes sense both in UK and USA English (Canadians, Indians, Barbadians too etc..)