Talk:NZR F class

Needs renaming

This needs to be in the for FOO F Class where FOO is the initials of the rly co. Strangely enough, alphabetical classification wasn't exactly unique! — Dunc|☺ 23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see anyone else wanting the namespace. There's no disambiguation page, nor a link saying "for the (whatever else) F class, see (here)". In fact, every "x class (locomotive)" namespace is unused, except for the ones used by articles about New Zealand classes. Not only do I not fancy changing all of those page titles or correcting the links in the numerous other articles that link to the various classes, but I also think such an exercise is utterly pointless as nothing else is even staking a claim to the namespace, let alone staking a good claim that it is more worthy of the namespace! - Axver 05:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We need:

1. To use unambiguous article titles
2. To be consistent with those titles over the whole Wiki.

Now, let's consider:

1. F Class, should be a dab page. We have off the top of my head, Metropolitan Railway F Class, LNWR F Class (not written yet, but see see http://www.lnwrs.org.uk/GoodsLocos/Loco15.php), NSR F Class 1916 0-6-4T, &c &c &c. A google search for F class locomotive yields several more. It is clearly ambiguous and thus disallowed.
2. For this very reason outlined in point 1, we have naming conventions which identify the rly co which first built the locomotive. Generally this should be the initials, though if it's only 2 , so LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0, Midland Railway 990 Class, etc. It's really quite simple.

The solution is quite simple; move the pages. You can keep the redirects if necessary. NZR F Class fits, and a search for that reveals good results. — Dunc|☺ 12:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree there needs to be a disambiguation page for the F class, linking to the various F classes. However, I disagree with this policy in general and I would request that you stop moving articles until there is a consensus.

Firstly, I'm under the impression that we should not defensively disambiguate. While there's only one Aa class (locomotive) on Wikipedia, it stays at the most obvious nameplace. When another crops up, deal with the issue by making a disambiguation page. Until then, leave it.

Secondly, I'm also under the impression pages should have the most practical, obvious name. Now, while other countries have multiple classes and would refer to the "XY Railway AB class" and the "YZ Railway BC class", New Zealand has only had one major railway (and all the locomotives of the sole significant private line were incorporated into the national fleet and appropriately classified) and someone searching for Kiwi locomotives isn't as likely to look up "NZR F class". After all, it's better known simply as the F class.

Thirdly, I don't see any official policy or manual of style on naming locomotive articles. At the moment, it seems to be more a case of "do what you think is best" and I think the current titles for the New Zealand locomotives are fine for the aforementioned reasons: clarity, practicality, no need to defensively disambiguate, namespace not claimed by anything else. When a problem arises from other classes, we'll deal with it (like the F class in this specific instance). While there isn't a problem, I think we should just leave it alone. - Axver 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I've brought up this topic on Talk:Locomotives of New Zealand, as I imagine there's a better chance of people offering input there rather than here. :)

- Axver 07:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Preserved Locomotives Section

With the inclusion of a table listing all locomotives in the 'Class register' section and if they are preserved, including preservation details, having a 'Preserved Locomotives' section seems a bit redundant... Savv nz01 (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)