Talk:0-4-4T

	Trains Portal
DYK	December 31 2005

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

Mid

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

0-4-4 → 0-4-4T — To quote the article itself, "almost universally associated with tank locomotives". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

Oppose. The name as is follows the series for these engines. If there were no versions without a tank, then maybe. But since it existed without a tank, this name is totally acceptable. Even if most had tanks. Add to that the 5,000,000 Google hits and this likely lacks a case. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world, we would have articles for both tank and tender versions. Maybe we will achieve this before too long, for some of the important distinctions like 4-6-4 / 4-6-4T. We need this because the designs have very little in common: a 4-6-4T is really a 4-6-0 with tanks instead, not any relation to a 4-6-4. Likewise the 2-6-4T and the 2-6-0 having more in common than the 2-6-4.

In the interim, we have one article and we use redirects to link the other form to it. The question then arises, which is the more appropriate name for this composite article to reside under? In some cases, the 4-6-2 Pacific, then it's pretty obvious. In others, such as the 2-4-2 / 2-4-2T, then there's little to choose between them for primacy. For this article it's abundantly clear the the 0-4-4T is the significant type.

An arbitrary consistency though is not of value. We should represent knowledge to reflect its structure, not to conform to some imposed repetition. Nor do we have to - we have tools like categorization and redirects, so that technical trivia doesn't get in the way of content. Keeping 0-4-4 because we already have 4-4-2 is pointless.

Google hits are never the arbiter of truth. Certainly not here, where 0-4-4 is used as a shorthand for 0-4-4T and thus appears over-represented. Can anyone cite even a single example of an 0-4-4 tender engine? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The key word in the justification for the move is almost. If that word wasn't there, then there may well be a case for a move. The fact that it is there indicates there are some versions that aren't tank engines. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so remove the word "almost". "Almost" is just the usual feeble prose encouraged by Wikipedia, where any absolute gets slapped with a {{citation needed}} by cop-out editors too lazy to research for themselves. There are no 0-4-4 tender locomotives. If there are (yes, I might be wrong), then cite the example.

Secondly, what's wrong with "almost"? We have 4-6-2 and 4-6-2T is just a redirect to it. There are certainly a few 4-6-2T locos, and we ought (given copious free time) to give them their own article. In the meantime though, placing the main article where it belongs and redirecting the subsidiary case to it is a sensible compromise. This is what we should do with 0-4-4T, only in reverse. If anyone turns up tender locos, then add them later. If someone turns up notable quantities of them running the Finnish treacle mines, then give them their own article. In the meantime though, we give an article a title that reflects what it's actually covering. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

0-4-4 → 0-4-4T – Relisted. The discussion was pointing to the old closed discussion so readers may not have found this new open discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC) This type only existed as a tank locomotive, i.e. 0-4-4T. There are no examples of an 0-4-4 tender locomotive. Despite the oppose !votes above, a year on and there is still no indication that there has ever been an 0-4-4 type that wasn't a tank loco. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - my knowledge is pretty much entirely about UK practice, but I do know that in the USA, the "Forney four-coupled" is an 0-4-4, however I don't know if that's a tank loco, or tender. Anyhoo, considering just the UK, I know of no instances of a 0-4-4 tender locomotive. It's rare that tender locos have fewer leading axles than trailing axles, and the only case that I know of where a wheel arrangement for tender locos violates that rule is the 0-4-2. --Redrose64 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.