Talk:0-4-2

Note: The following deletion debate on a related entry resulted in a vote to keep entries in this group. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure but I think it is not a word for a wiktionary. Contrary we must to have all "words" as 3-5-2, 3-4-3, 3-3-4, 4-3-3 and so on because all of them are "A popular soccer formations". In any case, it can't be an "English adverb" --VPliousnine 09:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Perhaps it should be a noun, but it describes an identifiable thing with a set meaning. There are quite a few combinations of numbers that serve similar functions. This also happens to be a steam locomotive configuration. bd2412 T 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. See BD 2-4-1-2 above (I doubt there are more than a dozen loco wheel formations and rather fewer soccer formations, and until you've seen the definition of one or two, they are fairly opaque). --Enginear 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For someone with the tag "Enginear" you should know better ;-) There are at least 50 steam locomotive combinations excluding rare ones, and at least a few dozen have names: 4-4-2 is Atlantic ... Robert Ullmann 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, careless indeed! Thinking back to my steam trainspotting days, I suppose there were about a dozen, and several names, in use in England in 1960 alone, and we didn't have anything bigger than Pacifics ... it's just it takes a while to blow out the cobwebs before I can get that bit of my brain up to speed. --Enginear 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So... keep. Pedant 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I count 81. A drop in the bucket for the whole of the dictionary. Let's collect 'em all. bd2412 T 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a small, finite (in practical terms) set, so let's. To come up with a figure like 81, I guess you still have some reference books, so you'd better lead, and I'll try to find some good cites. I see that Robert Ullmann helped cite anorakish so he may know more than either of us. ;-D --Enginear 13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have the single greatest reference book ever conceived - the train lovers of Wikipedia! :) bd2412 T 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the above are extremely rare (in practice), but they're all set meanings that are verifiable without much difficulty. bd2412 T 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Have added to my to-do list, and will try to cite those for which we already have entries...though not all at once. Where could anyone find a line straight enough to run a 4-14-4 (or a 0-12-0)? The Nullarbor Plain? And how would you ever get it in and out of a depot! --Enginear 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Iowa. I take that back; it's the Russians who use it! bd2412 T 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Striking and closing as kept (obviously). bd2412 T 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

---

RFD 2

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

0-4-2 and many similar ones

Is it really necessary to have 0-4-2 here? Same with 4-4-2 (football team also), 2-4-2, 2-2-0 etc. --Keene 23:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

0-2-2, 2-2-0, 4-2-4, 4-2-0, 2-8-8-2 also. All made by User:BD2412 if that helps. --Keene 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

BD2412 also created the following table, whose entries might all warrant deletion. --Keene 23:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. —Stephen 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keene, If you look up this very page a ways under 4-4-2, you will see that THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED and the vote was a unanimous keep (and in fact is was because that vote was unanimous that I imported the table from Wikipedia and made the rest of these). To avoid further confusion, I will now copy the results of that deletion debate into the talk page of each each of these entries. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• (but thanks for reminding me to finish the group) bd2412 T 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on - I know BD2412 is an admin, so his word counts more than mine, and that 'pedia has pages on these train things, but would people ever come to Wiktionary to search this? The previous discussion seemed to me like one user's opinion about how great trains are...please can we forget about Wikt hierarchy for a second and focus on how Wikt is a dictionary, and these pages are not dictionary material. --Keene 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe I should let go of this discussion. --Keene 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how are these not dictionary material? Because they contain numbers instead of letters? They constitute a finite set of terms used to identify specific things. Ask any ferroequinologist (yay, I get to use that word!) what a 2-4-2 is, for example, and you'll get a specific set answer which a quick Google Books search confirms readily meets the CFI:

Jim Harter, World Railways of the Nineteenth Century: A Pictorial History in Victorian Engravings (2005) p. 76:

• In 1889 a severe passenger train wreck occurred near Dijon, when a 2-4-2 engine derailed while going full speed downhill.

Robert H. Schleicher, Modern Lionel Trains (2003) p. 48:

• Lionel's first tinplate reproduction of a standard Gauge locomotive was a black 2-4-2 steam engine with three red passenger cars.

Geoffrey Freeman Allen, Trains Illustrated Annual (1962) p. 25:

• Returning in the works staff train to Kingsbridge behind 2-4-2 tank No. 41, we proceeded to Broadstone, former headquarters of the M.G.W.R.

Cuthbert Hamilton Ellis, The Beauty of Old Trains (1952) p. 117:

• The 2-4-2 tank engines of the Great Eastern and the London and North Western were simply adaptations of 2-4-0 main-line engines; the 0-4-4 tank engine owed its parentage to the archaic 0-4-2 mixed traffic.

Great Britain Ministry of Transport, Railway Accidents: Reports by the Inspecting Officiers of Railways of Inquiries Into Accidents (1931), p. 61:

• The train was drawn by 2-4-2 type radial tank engine No. 10859, class 2 P, running chimney first, which weighed in working order about 59 tons.

So, on the basis of these being non-idiomatic terms in use which meet the CFI, I vote keep. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, this is for 0-4-2, not 2-4-2... of course, 0-4-2 easily meets the CFI as well per Google Books hits (and one of my above cites actually hit this one inadvertently). Here's a few more just for kicks:

Edgar J. Larkin, The Railway Workshops of Britain, 1823-1986 (1988) p. 52:

• After five 0-4-2 saddle tanks in 1860, all other NLR motive power was constructed at Bow, and none of these early locomotives was fitted with a cab.

M. A. Rao, Indian Railways (1975) p. 143:

• The 'Lord Falkland', which pulled the first train from Bombay to Thana on April 14, 1853 was built by the Vulcan Foundry in England and was a ' 2-4-0 ' tender engine. This was followed by other locomotives of the 2-4-0, 2-2-0 and 0-4-2 types, which continued in use for a number of years.

Cheers again! bd2412 T 03:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A copy of the original RFD discussion is here. Since these words have already passed RFD once, less than six months ago, they should not have been resubmitted unless there was new evidence. Is there any? --Enginear 21:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of what, though? Evidence of the terms not belonging in the dictionary? They are in use and meet the CFI, so it would take a change in policy to support their deletion. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Train configurations

Would anyone object if I close this as a keep? bd2412 T 06:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, RFD is struck. bd2412 T 02:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)