Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

DDI Electric Locomotive No. 3696
I mostly agree with not using the photo of the sister -- that's why I flagged it -- although given that the only difference is the number, I think that the sister photo is a good placeholder. After all, we use a few perfectly terrible early Coast Guard photos of lighthouses as placeholders.

The article has a builder's drawing of the class -- no number -- how about that for here?

I don't understand, however, deleting the link to the article on the DD1 class. Surely we don't need one article on the DD1 class and a separate article on #3696? Unlike some of the notable steam locomotives on smaller railroads, it's unlikely that we'll ever know much individual detail on #3696, so it is more like a class rep than an individual. . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Among other things, we have a nomination form for the engine itself, so there's plenty of information on it. With the old lighthouses, the photos are of the lighthouses themselves, not other ones of similar designs.  Finally, you linked simply to PRR (a redirect to Pennsylvania Railroad), not PRR DD1.  Was that an error?  Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And you should be confused -- not my day, yesterday, sorry. I also transposed the engine's number, which Niagara has cleaned up. I meant to link to PRR DD1 which seems to me appropriate. Until we get a PD photo of 3696, how about using this PRR DD1 side drawing.jpg here? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Locomotive Articles
I will admit that I don't like being reverted on a lot of work so forgive me if there's an edge here.

It is certainly possible to do nice individual articles on some locomotives -- if you'll point me at the DYK to which you refer, I'll comment. That's not always the case, though. These: are all members of large classes. None of them is particularly notable* except that it survived the scrap heap. They are, in fact, only notable as representatives of large and successful classes. I will argue that anything said about them individually is almost beside the point -- except, perhaps the circumstances of their preservation. Certainly the fact that one spent the 20's in Philadelphia, the 30's in Ohio, and so forth, is just dull detail, even assuming that such information can be dredged from the PRR records.
 * Mikado Freight Locomotive No. 520
 * Freight Locomotive No. 5741
 * Locomotive No. 6755
 * Consolidation Freight Locomotive No. 2846
 * Consolidation Freight Locomotive No. 7688
 * DDI Electric Locomotive No. 3936
 * Passenger Locomotive No. 7002
 * Passenger Locomotive No. 460

I think also by reverting the links, you're saying that you'd rather have a red link than a link to an article that describes the subject in detail (along with its sisters) and gives some facts about the NRHP nominee. If we didn't have thousands of red-links, I'd agree -- but given limited resources, why not do the best with what we have?

-

* I should note for completeness, that the statements above are not quite true. #460 made one noteworthy run in her thirty year life, bringing the Lindbergh films from Washington to New York; this is probably why she was selected for preservation. #7002 was clocked at 127 mph in 1905; this may or may not have been a record. The irony here is that the locomotive on the NRHP is not the original #7002, but a substitute, standing as a representative for the real 7002 which was scrapped in 1934. Which makes my original point -- these are all representatives.23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

-
 * The article to which I refer is PRR 4859. I don't know how to find the nomination forms — Pennsylvania's completely redone its online NRHP presence, and I don't know if the forms for the others are online — but Niagara downloaded all the Lancaster County forms before the website was changed, so you can ask him/her for help here.  Moreover, enough books have been published about the PRR that there surely are sources that give coverage to these individual engines.  Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to take a trip down Strasburg Road for a long time. Unfortunately, I probably won't get to do it for about a month.  But there are 22 locomotives and cars listed here without pictures, so I'd guess I'll get to it sooner rather than later.  Can they really have that many on display?  I'm not sure what the fuss is all about above, but I gather that I better make sure the numbers are correct.  I'll contact Niagara about the filenames.  Any other advice?  Also feel free to take the photos before I get there!  Smallbones (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Photos would be great, Smallbones...


 * To recap: the debate here is whether to link the entries on this list for the locomotives listed above to the articles on each locomotives' class, each of which contains an NRHP infobox and a little on the individual. I did the work and think it's a good idea, at least ad interim. Nyttend disagrees.


 * I still disagree, sorry. These are all large classes and what the individual locomotives above happen to have done is beside the point.  In most cases the only reason they're on the NRHP is that they happened to be the first one in line on the rip track on the day the PRR went to get one to preserve.


 * With no disrespect at all to Niagara -- PRR 4859 is very readable and is a worthy DYK, but:
 * 4859 had at least two notable runs, as described in the article. One of the eight above had one notable run. Another is a stand in for a locomotive that had a notable run.
 * In order to get a full picture of PRR 4859 you must also read PRR GG1, the class article. I can't say that in this case that's a bad thing, as there are five paragraphs in PRR 4859 that are specific to it, but in the case of the eight above there would little that is specific.
 * The fact that enormous amounts have been written about the PRR is beside the point. These locomotives are not individually notable -- #6755 is one of a class of 301 which, "Many PRR men counted the M1 class locomotives as the best steam locomotives the railroad ever owned," but what 6755 did during its career, if known, is much less important than its membership in a notable class. (For more along these lines, see 1737, below).


 * And, finally, until Niagara or some other PRR fan gets around to writing an individual article on each, why not link to the class article, which, in each case, has an infobox and a mention of the NRHP member? Isn't that better than a redlink?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I wasn't clear — in saying that lots has been written about the PRR, my point is that lots of coverage means increased coverage for the more prominent locomotives. I have access to a book about the Chesapeake and Ohio that includes detailed coverage about many individual locomotives; the more that's written about the PRR, the more likely it is that there's a book like this for its locomotives.  Nyttend (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally don't like putting an NRHP infobox into the locomotive-class articles (for the same reason I have qualms about having an NRHP infobox for an historic building in an article about the company that owns/built it [i.e. Dollar Bank]). A locomotive-class article should have something on the individual locomotives (for comprehensivness). Linking a redlink for an individual locomotive to its class seems iffy to me. Whether an locomotive did anything famous is moot, there are plenty of articles on houses that are just representative of a style and not have any connections to a famous person. And I'm sure there's plenty of information on these locomotives, you just have to look ;-) I'd have written articles for them a while ago, but I rarely write an article without having a photo first. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara  ​​Don't give up the ship 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) For what it's worth, here's my view from looking at just the first item, the PRR L1s class article which includes NRHP infobox for "Mikado Freight Locomotive No. 520" and is pipelinked to from bluelink for "Mikado Freight Locomotive No. 520" in above list. First, it seems fine to me that "Mikado Freight Locomotive No. 520" be covered within the class article. But, as a reader i am confused by the NRHP infobox for a specific locomotive being included within the infobox for the locomotive class. It would seem better/clearer to have the NRHP infobox be separate, probably in a separate section of the article. By the way there are many ship articles where a merged ship+NRHP infobox seems best (especially in shorter ship articles), but in some longer ship articles it seems best to have a separate NRHP infobox in a lower/later section on preservation. Also, there should be a redirect from Mikado Freight Locomotive No. 520 (currently a red-link) to a specific location in the article, e.g. to "PRR L1s#Preservation" or to a new section title "PRR L1s#Mikado Freight Locomotive No. 520". With such a redirect then we don't have to bother with pipelinks. It would be good practice also to include a hidden comment next to whatever section title is used as target, mentioning that "Mikado Freight Locomotive No. 520" redirects to that section title, so that future editors are warned not to revise the section title in any major or minor way that disrupts the redirect, without also revising the redirect. In general, since there is going to be good info on the NRHP in its NRHP document, it seems worthwhile to have a separate section on it. And if it is primarily NRHP-listed as a good example of its class, it does seem suitable for the section to be within the class article rather than as a separate article. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PRR 1737
A separate problem which I raised at NRIS info issues. 1737 is on the NRHP as Passenger Locomotive No. 1737. It was the first locomotive in the K4 class, arguably the most famous of the PRR steam locomotives. We have an article on 1737, complete with a builder's photo of the original 1737. However, it is well known that PRR 1737 was scrapped in the fifties and that the PRR, unwilling to admit that they had scrapped a famous loco, put its builder's plate on #3750 and preserved it. The NRHP nomination calls out #1737. The Pennsylvania Railroad Museum has the locomotive, with #3750's number plate back on it. The conundrum is -- which locomotive's photograph do we use to illustrate this list -- the one that was actually nominated (3750) or the one that they thought they were nominating (1737) (we have both)? Which locomotive's story do we tell in the article -- or both? . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The nom form for 1737 also makes note of the fact that 3750 was "selected as a stand-in" for 1737. Meaning, IMO, the 1737 that was listed was the engine that is now 3750 (which, by the way, is also a state symbol). Merging the two articles is not out of the question, however. I should point out that a lot of the current articles on individual locomotives were all written by the same person (and pretty much none of them have sources). ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Photos needed
May not be complete or accurate


 * }