Talk:Delaware and Hudson Gravity Railroad

D&H
Throughout the article, the Delaware and Hudson Railway/company is sometimes written out completly and sometimes abbreviated to D&H. I feel we should keep this consistent and Either always write it out or always abbreviate it. We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. T. S. Eliot (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not so many inconsistencies as you may think. It is common practice in railroad articles to spell out the full name in the first mention, and then use abbreviations in the rest of the article, where the abbreviation has been stated in parentheses following the full name.  It is just too awkward to spell out the full name each time, and using full names everywhere would distract from the content of the article.  The D&H is peculiar in some respects because in addition to the D&H Gravity, there is the D&H Canal and the D&H Railroad, and each of those have their own Wiki pages, even though they are the same company.  Where a distinction needs to be made in the article, it is appropriate to spell out the full name and wikify it with a link to lead the reader to the appropriate article.


 * Railroad articles are also special because the legal names of railroad companies were often changed or slightly altered every time they merged or expanded across state lines. For isntance, often the XXX Railroad Company would be renamed the XXX Railway Company after a merger or consolidation.  Many such slight variations of a name were common throughout a railroad's life.  For the benefit if the reader, it is simpler to use a common abbreviation unless the article needs to distinguish or call attention to a particular legal name.  &mdash;Jim Irwin (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Steam
I only contribute to these talk pages to complain, so I'd better start off with a compliment. There is much deep information here, and there appears to be deep authority behind it.

As for your discussion in FNs 1 and 2 of the criteria to be considered in expressing railroad firsts, you dare to buck a miserable trend. Few sources bring up those issues. They just spew some vague first, in rhetoric likely specious, and blithely move on. Not you. Bravo.

That said, my perennial complaint is that again and again I come to Wikipedia to answer&mdash;not a specialized, but an elementary question&mdash;and it fails me:

1. Were the stationary steam engines online from the get-go, in 1829? If so, state it. If not, state the year they came online.

2. Aren't they the first, or almost the first, "steam engines used for rail operation in the Western hemisphere?" I mean, that's something to crow about. Well, then, crow.

I hate to pass thru that dreaded airlock out into the cold vacuum of non-Wiki space to confirm 1829 or not, but unfor. I have to.

Cordially,

Jimlue (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)