User talk:XAM2175/2022/12

Merseyrail and associated articles
Hi. Is there any chance you could work some of your reference formatting magic, e.g. the use of sfn on Merseyrail and its associated Northern Line and Wirral Line articles? There's some awful practice in those articles including extracts from reports that include in the body of the article things like "on page 37 it stated..." which to me is clearly something that belongs in the reference not the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hah, I've not actually looked at that article in any great depth, but just checking the reflist now gives me a bit of a hint that it needs some help, so I'll have a go next time I get a decent chunk of time. Thanks for the heads-up! XAM2175  (T) 11:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * works best when an article uses multiple references to the same source work, but with different page numbers, particularly if there are a large number of refs but a small number of actual source works. When sfn is taken to its ultimate, as with NBR 224 and 420 Classes, you may find that some sources are only referenced once (here, we have Baxter 1984; Boddy et al. 1963; Boddy et al. 1988; Chacksfield 2005; Ellis 1959; Ellis 1961; Gradient Profiles 2003; Pearce-Carr 2007; and Yolland & Barlow 1880 used just once each), and some people don't use sfn for those, see e.g. Prince Octavius of Great Britain although this can get messy. Where an article has mostly "one-off" sources, that is, where each book, webpage or magazine is only used once, sfn is not really appropriate. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've generally avoided using it except in those circumstances you describe in your first sentence. XAM2175  (T) 13:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Template:People of the Soviet Rote Drei resistance group"
Why do you keep changing the colour scheme on these template, that just seems to have happened out the blue?  scope_creep Talk  19:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My original edit summaries contained a link to MOS:CONTRAST. After you reverted those edits I left you a talk page message at User talk:Scope creep explaining this, and included the link to that discussion in my subsequent edit summaries. Did you not read my edit summaries before making your reverts? XAM2175  (T) 19:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * See my reply on your talk page, . Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarrail (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

EMU definition
Hi, the definition of an electric multiple unit in the article does not preclude the inclusion of trainsets such as the ICE-1s. There is no requirement for the power cars to carry passengers, just that the unit is a semi-permanently coupled, sef-powered whole. The point of it being a multiple unit is that more than one such set can be driven from a single cab. Therefore the ICE-1 qualifies as an EMU. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It does preclude it, because one of the key characteristics is having traction equipment distributed throughout the train. "Multiple unit" in this sense has the primary meaning of "a unit formed of multiple vehicles"; the fact that the vast majority of multiple units can work in multiple with other units is incidental. Thus the lack of distributed traction is also the reason that neither HSTs nor InterCity 225 sets are multiple units, even though it briefly suited BR to administer HSTs as being such. Conversely, applying a definition of more than one such set can be driven from a single cab would, for example, preclude s from being recognised as multiple units because they do not have this ability. XAM2175  (T) 13:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So, by that logic, are 153s and 121s not DMUs, as they only have 1 coach? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say distributed traction is a requirement: "electric traction motors are incorporated within one or a number of the carriages". eg The Class 442s qualifies despite only having a single power car. Also says that single cars are multiple units as they are self-powered and can work in multiple with other units. HSTs aren't DMUs as they can't operate in multiple with another set. IC 225s are not fixed formation sets. I can't see anything in the Class 390 article that specifically says they can't work in multiple. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, you're still approaching this using a mistaken conflation of "capable of multiple working" with "unit formed of multiple vehicles". It's the latter that is key, not the former. If you think of trains with those two attributes and arrange them as a Venn diagram there is enormous overlap, but the equivalence is not complete. Leaving aside the niche of single-vehicle 'units', as addressed in my reply to Mattdaviesfsic, consider the first two sentences of the EMU article together: "An electric multiple unit or EMU is a multiple-unit train consisting of self-propelled carriages using electricity as the motive power. An EMU requires no separate locomotive, as electric traction motors are incorporated within one or a number of the carriages."
 * This is de-facto requirement for distributed traction, in the sense that the traction system must be elsewhere in the unit if there's to be no locomotive. There is no hard-and-fast rule about exactly how it distributed; you are correct to note that 442s count "despite" having all of the traction kit concentrated in one vehicle, but that's no impediment to the definition because that one car is unquestionably not a locomotive. Another configuration like the Class 380 has two DM cars sandwiching a trailer – but that trailer has the pantograph and high-voltage transformer, ergo the traction kit is distributed. Whereas HSTs aren't DMUs because they're a rake of carriages sandwiched between two locomotives, and IC225 sets aren't EMUs because they're a rake of carriages with a locomotive at one end. Class 390s are EMUs because they have distributed traction, but there's no intention that they ever be driven as pairs – the coupler is only there to facilitate being dragged off the wires or being rescued. XAM2175  (T) 17:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are the one reading it wrong, there is no requirement for a unit train to have multiple vehicles. to be a multiple unit it must be capable of operating coupled to other sets, assuming compatible control systems, to operate in multiple. This is the whole point and purpose of the system. Nor is there a requirement for the traction system to be distributed throughout the train though this is often done for convenience. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC) (This reply was originally inserted into the middle of mine above, directly following the blockquote. I have moved it to this position.  XAM2175  (T) 22:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC))
 * No, to be a multiple unit it must be capable of operating coupled to other sets is entirely your own interpretation, and it's a wholly different concept; that of multiple working. Applying it to whether or not something is a "multiple unit" would extend it even to locomotives, given that the vast majority of them can work in multiple.
 * Additionally, you inserted your reply into the middle of mine. I've moved it to the correct place now, but I'm not sure that you read the second half of my explanation. XAM2175  (T) 22:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Locomotives on their own (or even in multiple) aren't unit trains. Again there is no requirement that a multiple unit must consist of multiple vehicles, that is your uncited opinion. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC) (This reply was also inserted into the middle of mine above, and has been moved to this position. XAM2175  (T) 22:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC))
 * Please stop inserting your replies into the middle of mine.
 * I didn't want to get to this point, but here we are: please provide citations supporting your interpretation.
 * XAM2175 <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 22:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quote= "…F J Sprague who invented the multiple unit train (1897) in which a single driver can control a number of motor coaches from either end of the train." No mention there that each un it had to consist of multiple vehicles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm reading that as describing a single unit: a cab at each end and any number of motor coaches mixed with trailers, as opposed to having a locomotive haul carriages. Being able to work with other units is completely immaterial to that. Your interpretation that this defines a multiple unit on the basis purely of working in multiple with other units is "supported" by this quote only inasmuch as it's not explicitly ruled out. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 12:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So you can't actually justify your intepretation? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can justify it, but I don't have my books to hand and I'm not invested enough to find temporary substitutes sufficient to justify it to your satisfaction. Regardless, the minimum number of vehicles required is tangential, as I've already stated several times that I have no interest in pushing against – and in some elements freely accept – the well-embedded British practice of regarding single-vehicle railcars as MUs. However, as you seem to be focused only on that point, I don't think there's much more we can achieve here anyway.  XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 19:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are distorting my views, I'm not focused solely on single vehicle units or even at all. I repeat the question I posed at the bottom of this discussion: Where is this "unit of multiple semi-permanently-coupled vehicles" provision necessary to make them genuine multiple units; stated? For all your bluster you have yet to answer it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I hadn't seen it until now. I suspect that I might have already been composing a reply at a separate point when you posted it. Nevertheless, and as mentioned above, without texts to hand I can't give the chapter and verse that I believe supports my understanding. I also wonder if perhaps there is a dimension of the the definition not being entirely consistent over time, or between different national applications. Whatever the reason, I don't wish to drag this out further or have it become acrimonious so I'd like to accept that we have our differences and move on. Thanks for your time. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 20:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As you say, we've done this to death. So Merry Xmas. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And to you too. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 20:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also add: single-vehicle "units" like 153s are not the main subject of this debate, as I accept conventional British practice that they are treated as DMUs. We don't need to continue discussing the minimum number of vehicles required to make a unit. It's your assertion that to be a multiple unit it must be capable of operating coupled to other sets, assuming compatible control systems, to operate in multiple. This is the whole point and purpose of the system. Nor is there a requirement for the traction system to be distributed throughout the train though this is often done for convenience that I dispute. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 23:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of British multiple-unit trains had all of the traction equipment within a single coach. Off the top of my head, I can think of, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this, and the fact that they do is not in contention. From my post at 1740 above: you are correct to note that 442s count "despite" having all of the traction kit concentrated in one vehicle, but that's no impediment to the definition because that one car is unquestionably not a locomotive. The core issue at hand is whether multiple working capability has any relevance in defining a multiple unit. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 00:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can dispute it but that is reality. See my request at the bottom of this discussion Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mattdaviesfsic: I've always considered single-vehicle things like 153s to be railcars because they fail the "unit of multiple semi-permanently-coupled vehicles" provision necessary to make them genuine multiple units, but British practice is to accept them as DMUs 1) because that's how BR administered them (the other option would have been as locomotives with passenger accommodation, I guess?) and 2) when you string a bunch of them together they do, in fairness, function almost exactly the same as a DMU does; after all, a train of two 153s differs mechanically from a train of a single 155 only by having two extra cabs. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is this "unit of multiple semi-permanently-coupled vehicles" provision necessary to make them genuine multiple units; stated? 17:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Murgatroyd49 (talk)

Met
Hello. There is a discussion at Metropolitan line for something which you were involved in. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)