Talk:Minecart

Merge proposal: from Decauville wagon
I propose merging Decauville wagon into Minecart. As far as I can tell, Decauville wagon is nothing more than a specific brand of minecart. It has certain design features that other brands may or may not have, but it's still just a glorified minecart. —  void  xor  17:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea as it is already linked in |Q3644569 to a number of similar wagons in other languages. Tis would only complicate matters. Peter Horn User talk 01:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fear of having to change transwiki links shouldn't prevent us from doing the right thing. I'd gladly fix it. We also shouldn't handcuff ourselves to a one-to-one relationship with whatever the other languages are doing. I see that you recently translated this article from the Italian Wikipedia (which is far less trafficked than the English Wikipedia), but your only reference is an old catalog from Decauville, which supports my point that it's just one manufacturer's version of a minecart. —  void  xor  13:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't find any other information online about this 'Decauville wagon' other than that catalogue source mentioned. However, the Minecart article seems to define a 'minecart' as a vehicle used on mine railways. However, the Decauville wagon article states it was used for ... transporting bulk cargo such as sand, coal and ores... transport of logs... for peat and sugar cane... for fuel,... for bricks... people,... for the transport and laying of prefabricated tracks... also used in trench railways. If this doesn't agree with the definition of a 'minecart' (a type of rolling stock found on a mine railway, used for moving ore and materials procured in the process of traditional mining.), then I would tentatively oppose. However I still question the notability of Decauville wagon. Are there other sources, online or offline, that can help in adding citations to that article? Also, from that article, it implies that these wagons are still in contemporary usage. Is this correct, or does this need clarification? Fork99 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To the other uses of a Decauville wagon: I saw that but somewhat dismissed it as advertising all possible uses. Even minecarts were used both below ground and above, though the article only mentions mined materials—not peat, suger cane, or people. If that's important (and supported by sources), it could be retained in the merger. It's fine with me if "Decauville wagon" becomes a section within the Minecart article; I'm not proposing deletion. —  void  xor  14:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I tentatively support a merge, if no other sources can be found about this 'Decauville wagon' (if no sources can definitively establish notability and/or somehow make this wagon distinct from minecarts). It does look like a minecart to me. I've been dealing with sockpuppet investigations lately, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, probably is a duck (WP:DUCK). Fork99 (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It could also be merged into Decauville as an additional section like === Decauville wagon === Peter Horn User talk 19:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do support a merge. The Deauville wagon is only different because its not use for mining. I recommend that it has its own section but not much else. General wellesley (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It's shameful that three editors supported a merge into Minecart, but months after the only editor against the merge subtly suggests a merge into the manufacturer's article instead, that becomes the result as closed. —  void  xor  01:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)