Talk:Budd Silverliner

Requested move 11 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: Cannot gauge a consensus for the move in this discussion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 03:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

– Consistency with Silverliner V, and eliminates the confusing ambiguity of the current title, as Budd made two different "Silverliners". Pioneer III is ambiguous with Pioneer 3, although we're missing some disambiguation notices to that effect. I don't think we gain anything by including manufacturers in this case, and there's precedent elsewhere to not include them with rolling stock (as opposed to locomotives). As a note, I'm planning at some point soon to spin-off Silverliner III and Silverliner IV from the parent Silverliner article. That's not part of this move request per se, but this request would clarify the future names of those articles. Mackensen (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Budd Silverliner → Silverliner II
 * Pioneer III (railcar) → Silverliner I
 * Bad idea. Silverliner I was a SEPTA name applied after the fact and would also exclude the non-powered coach design and the popular Pioneer III truck, which the article also touches on.  All the original source material will refer to those cars as Budd Pioneer III.  Renaming it will only cause confusion.Sturmovik (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a borderline case; I'm not even sure if I favor it but it's definitely an option. While original source material of course calls it the Pioneer III, later material seems split between that and Silverliner I (after 1974). Even the current article seems split on whether to call it the Pioneer III, the Silverliner I, or the PRR MP54. Any views on the Silverliner II? Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also recomend keeping the Budd Silverliner name as it is the original name of the rolling stock before the St. Louie and GE cars arrived and also naturally disambiguates the page from the omnibus Silverliner page. I am not sure there is sufficient information to give the SL-III and SL-IV cars their own pages. Someone made the SL-V page on their own initiative and I'm not one to dump on that person's hard work, but as you can see it's still barely more than a stub. I refer you to the Arrow (railcar) page and the Comet (railcar) page as to the necessity to combine variants of the same railcar family when there is insufficient information to make stand-alone articles for each one. The Budd Silverliners have a long history with applications that included high speed rail and intercity service.  I'd go further and suggest that the M1/M3 (railcar) article should be renamed Budd Metropolitan.  Much more elegant and reflects the builder's official choice of name.Sturmovik (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My problem with that is that Budd Silverliner is ambiguous between the Silverliner I and the Silverliner II, both Budd products. Whatever Budd might have called them at the outset, they've both been Silverliners since 1974. Silverliner V is hardly a stub either, especially with the Denver service, and there's more than enough information for standalone articles. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A good rule of thumb is that the attendant infobox shouldn't be significantly longer than the provided material. At that point it might be better to write a combined article with a combined infobox. BTW, that EMI section on the S-V page should probably be removed.  It's more an AC propulsion problem and has never come up since in the specific case of the S-V.Sturmovik (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm worried more that there will be less distinction between the Budd Silverliner and the Pioneer III coach concept, especially since that page includes the GTEL conversion and could also cover the P-III bogie design. The name is important to the story.  Calling it Silverliner I will imply in people's minds that the design was oriented around the EMU use when it wasn't.  Check your Pensy Power II, there's a section for Pioneer III and a section for Budd Silverliner.Sturmovik (talk) 14:01, 12 August 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Budd Silverliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140422232858/http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=869469 to http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=869469

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)