Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive components

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Needs editing or renaming, perhaps, but that's a matter for the editoial process. Sandstein 08:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steam locomotive components (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What. Is. This. Mess? Is this an article? Is this a list? Is this a lengthy caption to an image? Is this a glossary? Terribly formatted and with very dubious notability. I suggest transwikifcation to Commons where this can survive in the form of a lengthy description of an otherwise useful diagram, but Wikipedia is not a place to list components by machine. (Imagine: computer components, toaster components, space shuttle components, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:*Speedy keep: Per ^[1] which covers a lot of the stuff at techie detail. ^[2] is particularly good on valve gear and heating. To hand I have ^[3] This pretty well covers the notability stuff although there a bit UK/Ireland orientated and as a set might miss out covering stuff on more modern locomotives live Tornado and Duke of Gloucester where some components have been covered in detail. I've sometime glanced at this article myself when writing about other articles to faintly cross check stuff. Vehemently opposed to Transwiki .... if someone wants to do that then do it I'd want to see overall improvement on what could be achieved here first given previous experiences. In terms of retention of article generally deemed in an unfit state for the encyclopedia I'd note some comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times though some may see the case as not relevant, and [[1]]. Can I please confirm with the nominator they raised their good faith concerns to SME's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains first as an alternative to deletion to ensure there is no question of this not being a sociological experiment or vexatious nom. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Given your assurance that WPTRAIN is active, I'll try to report my concerns over train-related articles there first in the future. Tnx for letting me know about this option. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose deletion. I disagree that "Wikipedia is not a place to list components by machine" as an absolute principle, PP. It depends on the machine. This is quite a popular article: 2600 people in the past 30 days seem to have thought the subject was sufficiently notable. Why this level of interest? As time has gone on from dieselization, fewer and fewer people have a clue about how these beasts worked. I occasionally drive a steam locomotive, and it's not at all unusual, when some people see the fire, for them to ask "What's that for?" They are fascinated by this hang-over of early 19th century technology. They are astonished that water is boiled and that steam expands to deliver enormous power.
  Sources of concise information on how a steam locomotive works, including the components and their functions, are not readily available. It seems to me that the provision of an illustration, plus a very brief description of what a component does, plus links to articles about them (where articles exist), all on about 3 "pages", is the essence of useful information. Your comparison with toaster components ignores the fact that toasters have only two component and there is no mystery about how they work. I see the article on the International Space Station (1200 visitors in last 30 days), also a bit mysterious, contains several "pages" on its components that broadly equate to this article.
  To summarise: the article has a good-sized readership; it provides a good summary, with brevity; and it provides very useful links. It is far from being useless. DAHall (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that this shouldn't be deleted outright, but the formatting is bad. I would strongly suggest to convert this to a proper list (it's currently categorized as an article). Even though it is currently unreferenced, I feel like the layout of Components of medieval armour is much better than this here. @Djm-leighpark and DAHall: Since you seem to be rather concerned about this, would you consider this a good option? --LordPeterII (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm actually OK with the current format (but I'm randomly weird anyway). As a slightly off-topic comment I note there is fantastic scope for describing steam engines, and why they smoke and wee and steam for what seemingly appears random times, and need to be able to do the descriptions from nearly 5-year old level up to near expert level. As a practical matter if there is consensus I am willing to insert a lossless conversion to table format somewhat akin to Components of medieval armour ... but to achieve that format would need the diagram numbers converted to numbers. I can do stuff by using a sortable table on index, (maybe component major part), and maybe minor part. I can actually edit this kind reformat in my sleep without thinking too much with special tools some but not all might have (I'm rubbish at diagrams stuff). I'll commit(this is a best efforts commit) to have a best effort go by a target of 14 July 2021 subject to other stuff. Have to dash RL stuff ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Some folks seem to be a bit confused about what this article (and hence, nomination) is about. Nobody is questioning the notability of steam locomotive, steam engine, or even numerous components themselves like trailing wheel. But there is no indication that this random list of components passes WP:GNG (or WP:NLIST). There is also the OR concern with the claim that the article presents a (list) of "main components found on a typical steam locomotive." Who chose those elements? Presumably, the author of the diagram, who then decided to create the article. That's pure OR, making a diagram and then describing it on Wikipedia. And in fact, the OR nature of this is stressed through history: this was created in 2004 as a diagram description with no references. Over the years, the diagram has changed, and the list of components grew from 34 to 48, with not a single source confirming that 34 (or 48) elements in question are typical. And why, pray tell, are we supposed to believe the current list of 48 elements is correct? Why doesn't it mention the Kylpor ejector or the larger concept of the steam locomotive exhaust system? This is OR mess top to bottom. This or a similar diagram can be preserved and used in the article on steam locomotive, it doesn't need it own stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh Piotrus have your !delete vote then. I just noticed that you've AfD'd Components of medieval armour as well that I've been asked to model this on. Should by some weird perchance this article be kept by offer the work stands, timescale extending if there's relists.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an illustrated glossary of steam locomotive components is very clearly useful and encyclopaedic - by which I mean it is the exact sort of content that one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. This level of detail would be undue in the mean steam engine article, so it needs to be a stand-alone list. It could be improved and possibly that includes the title, but these are not matters for AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - needs too be rewritten if to be kept, otherwise it seem like non-encyclopedic trivia, mainly when lists are defined not by a single technical standard but by Wikipedians based on their personal experience/opinions/research = WP:OR - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recognise this as a description of the content in this article at all. I'm not sure what about the definition of components of a steam locomotive is unclear or OR at all, nor what is trivial about the subject? Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• First, all praise to Djm-leighpark for offering to re-format the article.
  One problem I can see with converting the text to table format is a point of difference with the armour components article – the text describing some components, such as those in the cab, is longer and will fit less readily in a table. Also, photos of some components might be hard to get hold of – especially the internal ones! But over to you.  ;-)
  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus asks: "Who chose those elements? Presumably, the author of the diagram ..." I guess so, but I don't really think that's important. What is important is whether they are pertinent. I am certain they are. He then asks, "And why, pray tell, are we supposed to believe the current list of 48 elements is correct?" As someone who is very familiar with operating steam locomotives, I can say that the list as it stands covers the most common components out of the many that could conceivable be included – and the descriptions are well worded. I don't understand how the list is a "mess top to bottom" as he postulates. While more references could be listed against individual components, there are good reference sources for some entries and in the "Further reading" list. Also, the articles linked in this article contain references. (I have just updated the Further Reading list; Fowler's 1906 Locomotive dictionary ... seems to cover all of the components. Maybe a note should be inserted at the top of the article citing this, or Steam Glossary, specifically the index pages, as a reference for all entries.)
  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus also asks, "Why doesn't it mention the Kylpor ejector or the larger concept of the steam locomotive exhaust system?" Because those subjects are abstruse, and beyond the scope of a generalised list.
  I believe it's drawing a long bow to consider the locomotive drawing as original research: it was clearly based on other sources (though it would have been helpful to cite them). There are many diagrams in Wikipedia that undoubtedly have been prepared (or commissioned) by editors for the purpose of clarifying a concept or subject, based on information that is too complex to make for easy reading in itself.
  I agree with Thryduulf's comment that it's "very clearly useful and encyclopaedic - by which I mean it is the exact sort of content that one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia." I noticed a comment in a similar vein by Elemimele on the AfD discussion concerning Components of medieval armour: "It's easy to forget what people do with encyclopaedias. How many kids through history have found themselves writing about medieval castles and knights, and turned to an encyclopaedia to find the names and functions of the different bits of armour? We would be failing in our duty at a very, very fundamental level if we didn't tell them. ... it's a subject that ought to be here ...". I think that's the essence with the Steam locomotive components article. We need to make sure that interpretation of policy doesn't become too specious and that reasoned common sense has its due weight. Let's keep. DAHall (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Another point that Anachronist made on the AfD discussion about armour was "This is basically a list article, and as list articles go, it's a far better list than the usual crap-list articles that can be easily substituted by a category. Each entry has not only an illustration but also its own article with its own sources". The same applies here; it's a great visual index to a lot of articles, and it's an overview that's highly appropriate in the setting of an encyclopaedia, so keep. Elemimele (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Glossary of steam locomotive components or possibly merge into steam locomotive although it seems impractical and unwieldy to do so. When Elemimele pinged me above, I looked at the article and was reminded of Glossary of wine terms, which I had contributed to many years ago. Wikipedia hosts many glossaries: Glossary of mathematical symbols, glossary of music terminology, etc. The thing about glossaries (particularly music terminology and math symbols) is that hardly any of the entries have their own stand-alone articles, and the terms don't need them either. A glossary of terms pertaining to a notable subject is useful and encyclopedic. I suppose they would fall under the same guidelines as lists (we don't seem to have one about glossaries specifically). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I wonder what makes glossaries notable? There is proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries, and nothing else I see that says whether glossarie are allowed on Wikipedia (although, obviously, many exist). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say that the long-term existence of a large number of glossaries is what says that they are allowed on Wikipedia. That the MoS talk page has no discussion of whether we should have glossaries at all also speaks to their acceptance by the community. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are right, although I think potential OR issues with creation of such lists will be something Wikipedia will have to address in years (or decades) to come. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When I first looked at this article I assumed it had been greatly improved since its AfD nomination. But no and it is absolutely fine. I prefer it as it is (the text in tables is too small for my liking) so I'm weird too. The references are (and were) OK. And are we supposed to believe the current list of 48 elements is correct? No, if any are missing please add them and if any should not be there... In a featured article biography how do know the aspects of the person's life mentioned are the correct ones? Who selected what to include? The editors made the selections. We are here collectively to make decisions. Thincat (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remformat: The article is well sourced for what it's aiming for, it's not horribly written, and it seems like a relevant article. That said, this article certainly is formatted very strangely and it does pain me just a tad to look at. The big photo should be included in a small box with a caption on the side, there should be an opening paragraph, and the parts listed in the sections. The article is sort of an article-list hybrid. Odd, needs to made more pretty, but overall its a valid article. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs to be improved. But your content is referenced. The argument for deleting the article is unconvincing. Why can't there be an article about train parts? If there are books about it, then there may be an article about it. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.