Revision as of 18:30, 27 July 2009 editWuhwuzdat (talk | contribs)56,587 edits Undid revision 304522128 by Cudaprez (talk) revert unsigned edit, violated page rules posted clearly at top← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:27, 27 July 2009 edit undoNE2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers190,449 edits →Reporting marks: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
Someone vandalized my Userspace! ] But a little angel came along and fixed it! ] Thank you! <small>You can thank others by using {{tls|Vangel}}!</small> <font face="tahoma">'''</font>]] </font>]]'''</font> 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)<!-- Template:Vangel --> | Someone vandalized my Userspace! ] But a little angel came along and fixed it! ] Thank you! <small>You can thank others by using {{tls|Vangel}}!</small> <font face="tahoma">'''</font>]] </font>]]'''</font> 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)<!-- Template:Vangel --> | ||
== Reporting marks == | |||
There's no way the museum can have reporting mark IRYM, since it's not an operating freight railroad. I can't find anything in for the museum. As for the CA&E and CNS&M, just because there was an abbreviation on the car doesn't mean that was a reporting mark; not all railroads had them until the 1970s or so. The shows that the CA&E did not have a reporting mark (which would be marked with an asterisk), only a "uniform alphabetic code for railroad identification", whatever that was. is an incomplete compilation of reporting marks from the ORERs. --] 19:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:27, 27 July 2009
PAGE RULES:
- 1) A new topic requires a new section.
- 2) New sections go at the bottom of this page.
- 3) New sections require titles.
- 4) New replies go underneath the post they are in reply to.
- 5) Sign your posts by typing ~~~~. (Sinebot doesn't work here)
- 6) Posts must be coherent and civil.
I reserve the right to delete any postings from people unwilling or unable to obey these simple requests.
If you are here to tell me you changed or declined a speedy delete tag that you disagreed with, feel free to NOT leave me a note.
I respect your opinion, experience, and judgment on this matter.
I also irrevocably agreed to release my contributions under the GFDL, and that includes the speedy delete tags!
If you still feel that leaving a comment on one of these matter is truly necessary, I ask that you check the edit history of the article in question, and view the version of the page as it existed AT THE TIME I TAGGED IT, before leaving your comment.
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Electric transmission
Hello. I maintain that the primary meaning of the term Electric transmission is Electric power transmission; so much, that the latter could even be given the former title (but that's a side issue). I can't find a mention of locomotives in first 50 Google hits.
From the same page (emphasis mine):
If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.
IOW, we don't need a 2-item dab page; a hatnote at Electric power transmission will suffice. No such user (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Try Searching Diesel Electric. 90% + of the locomotives in use today have an "Electric transmission". WuhWuzDat 13:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't negate that "electric transmission" exists in locomotives. The point is, when you hear "electrical transmission", what is your first association (well, if you're not a railway engineer)? I think, and common usage seems to agree, that those are power lines. Since we're dealing with a two-way interpretation, a 2-item dab page is unnecessary, and I added a hatnote to Electric power transmission to explain the redirect. No such user (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
UAA and username policy update
Just letting you and other editors who do a lot of listings at UAA know that the username policy has underwent some changes as of yesterday. You may wish to look it over at your convenience. Cheers, Nja 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you :)
Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Reporting marks
There's no way the museum can have reporting mark IRYM, since it's not an operating freight railroad. I can't find anything in for the museum. As for the CA&E and CNS&M, just because there was an abbreviation on the car doesn't mean that was a reporting mark; not all railroads had them until the 1970s or so. The 1958 Official Railway Equipment Register shows that the CA&E did not have a reporting mark (which would be marked with an asterisk), only a "uniform alphabetic code for railroad identification", whatever that was. is an incomplete compilation of reporting marks from the ORERs. --NE2 19:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)