This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose – the "disambiguation" gives the title meaning, recognizability, and precision, without hurting anything or being over-precise.
Dicklyon (
talk)
03:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Indeed, why not? They were moved from those titles over my opposition, with little support. My impression is that putting New York in there is more precision than required, and that a naturally unambiguous title is better than one with a parenthetical disambiguator, but I wouldn't object if people prefer to go back to that. I hadn't looked at the category.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. In looking for references, I see that these are just called R33 World's Fair. The purpose of the article is to explain what they are. We call things by their name, and do not for example, call the
Chrysler car company,
Chrysler automobile company.
Apteva (
talk)
04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
That's awesome; show us those references, so we can cite them, please. I have not been able to find any but wiki mirrors that call them that.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
You mean the
Redbirds ref that you added? It calls them "R33 WF", "R36 WF", and "the World's Fair cars". And it's some guy's personal site; hardly a reliable source for anything, much less a COMMONNAME claim that it doesn't even support.
Dicklyon (
talk)
03:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Changing "R33WF" to "R33S"
According to MTA documents during the 1980s, when all old cars were being overhauled, the "R33WF" cars were constantly referred to as R33S. By extension, all R36s (whether they had the R33-style windows or the R32-style ones) were referred to as R36s.