Talk:Locomobile Company of America/Archives/2015

Compound or twin simple?

were locomobiles compound or twin simple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Redoing page: Spin off article?

I undid the moving of most of the text to Locomobile Company of America. Making this into a disambiguation might be a good idea, but should be discussed first. Also the way it was done created various problems including breaking reference tags, loosing attribution history, and incoming wikilinks were not fixed. Thoughts? Should the car brand article be moved and "locomobile" be turned into a disambiguation? Infrogmation (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted undiscussed anon removal of material which created a major mess. Infrogmation (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We may have no choice but to make this a DAB page, and a simple one at that. Virtually ALL the relevant information should be on Locomobile Company of America. The problem we have is that in many other countries, 'locomobile' is the word used for traction engine. Follow the interwiki links and you will find that the destination could be either the company or the traction engine page (of the three current links, two should be on traction engine!) And of course, on all the 'locomobile' pages on all the other wikis, the links may or may not be correct. It doesn't help that there is often no distinction made between a portable engine and a traction engine, although I'm not sure the word 'locomobile' is formed correctly for the former, seeing as how it is not self-propelled. (We have all the same problems on Commons where there are multiple categories, even though English category names are supposed to be used.)

Hopefully, once it is a DAB page, the bots will spot this and correct the links automatically. Making sure that the English interwiki on the other language sites points to traction engine should help.

I have a huge backlog of checking to catch up after a two-week wikibreak, so I cannot tackle this at present. If you have the time to run with it, bearing in mind some interwiki work will also be required, then that would be great. If you don't feel up to the interwiki stuff, fine, please sort out this as a DAB and I'll try to do the other stuff later.

EdJogg (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there were three valid edits (6-13 Aug) that have been 'lost' in the present version of the article and need re-instating. EdJogg (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not lost, they're in the history and any relevant info can be placed in the appropriate place. I have no objection to a split, it simply needs to be done more properly than the horribly sloppy attempt by the anon editor (eg, the categories, references, Commons gallery etc relevant to the automobile company were suddenly in an article not about that company while absent from the article about the company; incoming wikilinks messed up, etc). As there is more material about the auto company than other meanings of locomobile, I suggest that the article be MOVED first, as more of the article history is relevant to that subject, THEN the material not about the auto company be spun off here. Other thoughts? Infrogmation (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

By 'lost' I was indicating they were not in the current text and could be easily overlooked. Anyone looking at the page, without examining the history first, would be unaware of them.

You are quite right though, a MOVE is the most appropriate action, which we cannot now do ourselves since Locomobile Company of America exists in parallel, created at the time of the Great Delete. We will have to get admin assistance to delete that article, then the process is pretty simple to move this page over in its place, etc, as you have suggested.

EdJogg (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm an admin and can take care of that part of it. I think it's best I wait a few more days to see if other issues are raised, and if there are no objections will do so. Infrogmation (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally the 'lost' edits are no longer a concern. One has been reinstated by the original editor; a second has been shown to be not required, as the text being edited was mis-placed (now removed); the third was an interwiki link that will need resolving with the other page adjustments discussed here. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm deleting the copy & paste fork and moving "Locomobile" to "Locomobile Company of America" now per discussion. Infrogmation (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I've done so, and made a start at the disambiguation page at Locomobile, moving all material not about the US auto brand there. Infrogmation (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Between the English and German articles (on traction engines) I have found a total of 14 wiki articles. Only one of them (French) is a DAB page, and that should be linked from Locomobile. It will take a while for me to work through all these articles, as I might as well add all the links to all the wikis! Don't hold your breath!

EdJogg (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to the fun, the equivalent article to this, in German, is Locomobile, while the one for traction engines is Lokomobile...aaargh! -- EdJogg (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Back-up Bielasko edition

i think somebody can create a new disambiguation article ... i can´t do that... help us.

- Joe - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.53.213.6 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)