Talk:Johnson Bar (locomotive)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johnson Bar (locomotive) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Trains: Locomotives Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

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

This article lacks references.

Merger discussion[edit]

Request received to merge articles: Johnson Bar (locomotive) into Reversing gear; dated: 06/23. Proposer's Rationale: All of the material of the Johnson Bar page either duplicates material on the reversing gear page or could be easily included within it. Discuss below. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Eldomtom2; per your message to me about the merge flow, I am still getting 30% more search hits on Johnson Bar over reversing gear. What are you finding on your end? Are you in the UK? It's certainly open for suggestions in this discussion. Let us know. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search hits are only one factor to be considered. The key point is that not only is Johnson bar region-specific, but that it only refers to one type of reversing gear. It makes no sense to merge the article with a broader scope into the article with a narrower scope.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I will defer to you and the other train folks for your decision on that. GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I revert your edits to the merge tags then?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GenQuest: regarding this edit: what is MRB, and why do you think that the {{merge from}} tag is not neutrally worded? If there is a problem in that respect, please take it up on the template talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64 Merge Request Banner. There are three that are usually used on requests: The "MergeTo," "MergeFrom," and simply "MergeWith." They determine the flow of the merge (source article→target article). The MergeWith is obviously neutral in terms of the direction the merge will take (which is then determined in the discussion itself). There is not a problem with any of the templates. GenQuest ^"scribble" 00:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CMNT There has been no resistance expressed to merging the articles, even after notifying ProjectTrains. Eldomtom2 should consider moving forward with the merge in whatever fashion he sees fit. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]