Talk:Erie Lackawanna MU Cars

Article length
Um, this isn't Wikipedia material. Wikipedia is not a guidebook. There's a home for this, but Wikipedia is not it. oknazevad (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The subject--these classes of multiple units--is notable, but list showing current disposition is not and is disproportionally long. Mackensen (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be long, but on most pages of international rolling stock, status and disposition tables are standard. See British Rail Class 67 and then click around from there.Sturmovik (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK. See also List of Shoreliner names for an example of a deleted near identical in scope article. oknazevad (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain how WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK applies as the list of car histories doesn't meet any of the listed criteria. You might as well call an admin right now cause I'm not backing down.Sturmovik (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If length is a problem I suggest you find a more constructive way to fix things instead of making it my problem as you did on the SEPTA Regional Rail article. Before you swoop in, damage an article and swoop out, perhaps you should consult the people who are actively working on the page first.  I'm open to suggestions if you have any to make, but throwing out good info out with the bad is not acceptable.  For example you could make a disposition table with the owner on the Y axis and the car type on the X and number of cars in each of the grid references.  If you don't want to do that put up one of those "Fix it" banners and discuss it here in talk.Sturmovik (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The part where I removed the poorly formatted, screaming all caps list at Silverliner? Sorry, I see what you meant. The section was explicitly removed as a copyvio, part of the vast reams of plagiarism (and sockpuppetry) by a now banned user. When it was removed with a proper edit summary stating the reason, to merely revert was completely inappropriate on your part.
 * The section in question was still important to the article and instead of fixing it properly you just deleted it forcing me to take time to re-summarize the information. It's rude to take five seconds to delete something and force someone else to spend quite a bit more time than that to restore the important parts.Sturmovik (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but cooyvios are to be removed, period. oknazevad (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Who made you the copyright police? Leave things better than you find them.  Don't force me to clean up the mess.Sturmovik (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. There's this legal obligation to remove copyright violations. Removing them is making things better, because it's protecting the whole of Wikipedia from being sued out of existence. It is something we are all obligated to do. Period. It's something you agreed to when you signed up under the terms of use. The only mess was the one created by the illegal use of copyrighted material. I did clean up that mess. Let me say that again. There was a mess. I cleaned it up. I was the second person to clean it up. The mess was originally made by Oanabay4, who turned out to be a serial plagiarist. It was cleaned up by removal. You messed it back up when you restored the copyright violation without taking into account that it was a violation. So you weren't cleaning up my mess, I was cleaning up yours, as we are all obligated to do. If you don't understand the seriousness of what you did, you are in the wrong place. oknazevad (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What he said. Copyright violations is a policy and it's an important one. If you're holding that against oknazevad and that's getting in the way of working on this article then you need to take a step back and reconsider. His actions were entirely appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As for this article: No, I don't want to fix your messes, I want you to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a railfan spotter's guide and excessively detailed lists of road numbers are not appropriate for a general interest encyclopedia, especially when they inappropriately use direct external links to a user-generated site as their sole source, with no evidence that any of that is current, even if it were appropriate. I won't remove it, but I'm sure as heck going to put Template:Too detailed on it. Because it is. oknazevad (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (PS, I actually rode on these cars, so it's not like I have a hatred of rail topics, he'll I am a railfan, but I also know when it crosses the line into foamer rivet counting territory, and this does.

I removed all this stuff back in 2013, but I see it's back. As a railfan, I have to agree with that this level of detail is unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The proper way to fix it is to make sure the important preservation information, who is operating EL MU Cars and how many, is retained. Yeah it'll take an hour to re-do the table.  That's why I haven't done it myself yet.  When I have time I'll work on it, or you can.Sturmovik (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The information is important, yes, but it should be presented in summary style and be verifiable from reliable sources. A table showing every single car individually is not a summary, and a picture on rrpicturearchives.net isn't a reliable source. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Revisions
There are several revisions that I believe are needed. In the summary box, I note that the maximum speed is listed as 63 mph. This is true for level track with matched pairs of cars (i.e. 1:1 ratio of power cars to trailer coaches), and is based on General Electric's original factory tests on the cars. Maximum speed on downgrades is thought to be approximately 75 mph, and maximum speed with two power cars and a single coach is unknown, but was significantly faster than that of matched pair trainsets.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it! Don't need my permission. Sturmovik (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Motor numbers
Taber gives the original numbers as 2500–2640 (141 units). I can't find anything in parts 1-2 about renumbering, though it could be in there. Railway Passenger Car Annual from 1973–1974 lists the following MUs still belonging to the Erie-Lackawanna: 3500–3599, and 4600–4638 (ex 3600–3638). There are various units missing in the sequence. No dates on the re-numberings, but they would appear to predate New Jersey Transit (which is what the article had claimed). Mackensen (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)