User talk:Baronvonbarno

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, Baronvonbarno, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Pittsburgher seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pittsburgher, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ...not to mention improperly formatted and unencyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I added a reliable source! Just because you do not read the sources or understand them, does not mean they are not useful! Baronvonbarno (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. You added "Rob's Pennsy page", and your list is still not correctly formatted, and does not, it seems, contain any encyclopedic content. Please stop and acquaint yourself with our guidelines, starting with WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How is a listing of the equipment used not encyclopedic content? The link takes you to a listing of the makeup, published by the railroad in question.
 * How is the list not correctly formatted? Baronvonbarno (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can link you to other wikipedia pages with similar content if you would like. Baronvonbarno (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears the page has been reformatted, but this is the source in question - a document from the actual railroad that ran the train:
 * http://prr.railfan.net/passenger/Consists_InterRegional_April1939.pdf Baronvonbarno (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pittsburgher. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please explain how I am vandalizing, I have a reliable source listed on the page, and the information is useful. Baronvonbarno (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is a book written about the railroad, using real life published consist information used by the railroad. Baronvonbarno (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

An unformatted consist list isn't a great addition, but it's not vandalism (I assume didn't literally mean that and just used the wrong template). A consist needs to be part of a discussion about equipment and properly formatted. See El Capitan (train) for a good example. Mackensen (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When we get to this level, it is vandalism: we don't have a level 4 for disruption. But if you can help this user out, and get them to understand RS, that would be great. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, about that. The citation wasn't formatted correctly, but the source isn't a fan page but rather a company document hosted on a fan page. That's a perfectly acceptable source for a consist (which is jargon, but American English jargon, the British call it a rake); probably better than some others like Wayner in that it sets out a standard for normal operation, as opposed to the vagaries of day-to-day operation.
 * Striking a balance between encyclopedic value and triviality with consists and equipment is difficult but it can be done, and articles on streamlined trains in the first half of the 20th century do tend to include this information in one form or another, to the point that there's a template for it: . Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to reformat using that template, thanks! Baronvonbarno (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest showing a single consist, picking one that's representative. It shouldn't overwhelm the text. The text itself should discuss the equipment used, and how that changed over time. If you have access to Wayner's Car Names, Numbers and Consists, that's an excellent starting point for lightweight trains. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can definitely do. Would a selection of two or three work? The equipment tended to vary between prewar and postwar years - I can include a summary of that in the text along with other information as well. Baronvonbarno (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a question of formatting more than anything. Three consists will take up a considerable amount of space and the text needs to be long enough to support it. Note how this was handled in Broadway Limited; there are two consists, and the second one really doesn't fit. It's overflowing into the next section. The text does describe the primary changes, including some of the Amtrak-era equipment. Consists that don't fit can be linked out to external sites; they don't have to be rendered here (see also WP:SUMMARY; we can't include everything). Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. I'll condense it down and see if I can add some more general information to the text section as well. Baronvonbarno (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am happy to reformat if necessary, I just fail to see how adding a relevant sample of equipment over time is neither encyclopedic, nor pertinent to the article. It is particularly helpful to those who traffic these kinds of pages. Baronvonbarno (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)