Talk:McKeen railmotor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit summary[edit]

While it is true that the McKeen railmotor did run in Victoria, it is a complete misconception to believe that you can or should have a location-specific article for a machine that operated in many countries around the world, and was particularly popular in the United States. The information I have added to this article is fully cited and completely relevant; please do not remove it again. Only through this spirit of collaboration can we have a stronger WP for everyone - not just Ozzies. Thx. • Freechild'sup? 14:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the article history. May I recommend that this article might benefit from additional paragraphs about use in other countries? That would give casual readers such as myself a better perspective. Thanks. -Arch dude 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it would benefit from a broader perspective. However, the edits I completed regarding US usage were simply to illustrate to another editor that the article did not have to be Australia-centric. I am nothing more than a casual reader of choo-choo articles, at best. Someone else needs to do this research. • Freechild'sup? 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well i did start this article with the intention of it representing its uses in Australia by the Victorian Railways. --Dan027 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are inconsistent[edit]

I noticed that the first data mentioned in the article is 1905, but the "build date" in the infobox is 1914. Why? -Arch dude 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. Checked source, fixed date. • Freechild'sup? 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

The pre-existing article McKeen Motor Car Company was the logical place for all this extra info about the Australian use of these cars. Some content has now been moved from that article to this one. IMO, there is no need to have two articles about this; the company's entire business was producing these cars, so having one article about the company and another about the cars seems like it'll just end up with duplication and confusion.

I propose that the two be merged. Thoughts? If nobody has any opinion I'll proceed to perform a merge and include lots more detail. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is loosely the car-specific information in the context of the larger article. At this point I would like to see the McKeen Motor Car Company article expanded, and then if necessary merge the two. But first the expansion. • Freechild'sup? 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a fair amount of additional info on these cars, sufficient to do quite a bit of work I think. I'll see what I can do. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McKeen railmotor tells less even about the technical aspects of this railcar than McKeen Motor Car Company. Somebody ought to concentrate the technical aspects and experiences in traffic here and commercial aspects there.--Ulamm (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But merging would be the best solution.--Ulamm (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure we're all on the same page, merging these two would be like merging the Ford Mustang article into the Ford Motor Company article. • Freechildtalk 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Daft idea. Company vs. product. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this idea was floated 4 years ago, both articles have expanded quite abit, i think this idea is no longer relevant. --Dan027 (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission etc.[edit]

This article would be greatly improved if an acccount of the complex mechanical transmission was included, and other aspects of the innovative technology ofthese railcars was included. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McKeen railmotor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McKeen_railmotor&oldid=1208923572"