Talk:4-2-4T

Requested move 23 August 2016

 * The following is a closed 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. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Note also that 4-2-4 is a football formation, so I've turned that into a dab page. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

4-2-4T → 4-2-4 – Not all these engines were 4-2-4T. Most of the UK engines were well-and-back tank engines while the SA engine was a converted steam tractor which, at times, was fitted with a water tank tender. The present name is also out of step with all other steam locomotive wheel arrangement articles. I would have done the move by myself, but there's a redirect page named 4-2-4 in the way. André Kritzinger (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Where are the tender locos?   This is an article where by far the predominant forms were tank locos. If there are a handful of tender types, they can be covered here too. A separate article for 4-2-4 wouldn't reach WP:N on its own.
 * "Consistency" is not a good reason to name articles. A more accurate fix to their actual scope is a better one. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Where are the tender locos? Here's one. And there's no suggestion for a separate article here. - André Kritzinger (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are tank locos. Even when pulling an additional tender, they're still tank locos. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Response. That's immaterial. The subject of all these articles are the various Whyte notation wheel arrangements. The several possible suffixes (T, ST, IST, WT, TT or T+T, PT, R, F) are just that, suffixes, and can be added to virtually all steam locomotive wheel arrangements, depending on the configuration of a specific locomotive with that wheel arrangement and whatever its tank or other (R or F) attributes are. None of these suffixes therefore belong in the title of an article on any specific wheel arrangement such as this one, but in the title or description of a specific locomotive or class with that wheel arrangement and configuration. In some cases the suffix is even completely disregarded. By definition, all Garratt locomotives, with three known exceptions, are tank engines since they carry all their water on board, but a T suffix is never used. The three exceptions are actually TT or T+T engines with water tenders. - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Where are the tender locos? Peter Horn User talk 20:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - First of all, my participation in this discussion was specifically requested today. I created this article in 2005 to fill out the list of articles about the Whyte type wheel arrangements. It was moved in 2011 to its current name because the majority of locomotives mentioned that used this wheel arrangement were tank locomotives. A 4-2-4T is a subtype of 4-2-4 locomotives because all 4-2-4Ts are 4-2-4s; the trouble is, and the main basis for my support is that not all 4-2-4s are 4-2-4Ts even though it appears so far that the majority of locomotives that were actually built to this wheel arrangement were tank engines. It is also worth noting here that a few other Whyte type articles have been moved like this one to the tank version for apparently the same reason: see 2-2-4, 0-4-4, 2-4-4 and 0-8-4 (the article at 0-8-4 is about a television episode, so a little more finesse is needed there).  The article at 4-2-4 should be about the base Whyte type whether or not most of locomotives with that classification were tank locomotives, and we need to put on our research hats to find the tender locomotives that were built to this wheel arrangement.  If there were never any 4-2-4 tender locomotives built, we need a reliable source that says so, which would be the only reason I would consider leaving this article here (and modifying the lead section to state as such).  Slambo (Speak)  19:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.