User talk:Someone who likes train writing

Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply, I’ve been a little inactive. Also I’m sorry I have a different temporary account number, when I take a break from editing I keep selecting log out by accident. Anyways just to let you know I would love to help you out with the Draft:Irving Maidman page, but unfortunately I know nothing about businesses people and such, my knowledge for them is just not good. I just like to contributing to train and locomotive pages the most, I’m sorry for turning you down on that draft article you created, I just have no knowledge about business people. But thank you anyways.

P.S. Also, is there a chance you can find someone to look at this page:Draft:Canadian National 1551, I’ve resubmitted it a while back for it to be reviewed again but its taking a while for it to be look at again. ~2026-10973-47 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That's alright. I just wanted to be sure whether or not you'd be up for that. Thanks for replying anyway.

Also, I'd recommend asking User:Trainsandotherthings or User:PRRfan about that No. 1551 draft. I have access to some sources for that locomotive, but I was going to wait until I get on a kick to rewrite the pages for all steam locomotives the Ohio Central owned and/or operated. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, no problem! ~2026-10973-47 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I've created a page for the Norfolk and Western classes Y4a and Y5, and I was wondering if you could do some writing on that. Since most of the sources I found is just the accidents of the locomotives. Insomniac187 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this page is necessary, since I already created a Y4 section in the Y3 page, and also, and I think the Y6, Y6a and Y6b page could just be redirected to include the Y5 in the title, since they were key to the Y6's development. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved some of the content from the Y4a/Y5 into that page, including the accidents and incidents involving the locomotives. Insomniac187 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I managed to create an early draft of 6988, if you want, I can let you do the rest. Because I don’t have any train magazines or other railroad articles I own to read up on it and update it. Like I remembered what you told me before, when you said record straight that on your talk page, you said you'd be lying if you said you'd be unwilling to help, because if need be, you totally would if you know where to find the sources on certain locomotive pages. I still haven’t forgotten about that, but like I said, no pressure at all. Take all the time you need. ~2026-12858-11 (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I still need to get around to working on other pages, especially Crab Orchard and Egyptian 17 and (eventually) Chesapeake and Ohio 614, but I do have the QJ book and a Newspapers.com subscription. If you wait a little while before submitting the draft this time, I'll see what I can do. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I can count on you! ~2026-12858-11 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Say, if you would like to do something for me in return, may I suggest looking into this May 1984 issue of Railfan & Railroad for the Texas State Railroad article? Because the three pages I've created for Nos. 28, 30, and 1316 are now labeled by myself as unreliable, because I did not use very many good sources at the time I wrote them. I have bought the May 1984 issue, as well as the September-October 1996 one of L&RP, to eventually redo them myself, but I just haven't gotten around to them. If you could read the 1984 article and see what edits you could do based on that (especially correcting anything I left behind) I would appreciate it. But if you don't think you could do anything about them at all, that's alright. We all have lives that get in the way. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I’ll see what I can do. ~2026-12858-11 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

On 2 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boone and Scenic Valley Railroad 8419, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Boone and Scenic Valley Railroad 8419 was one of the first Chinese steam locomotives to be exported to the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boone and Scenic Valley Railroad 8419. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Boone and Scenic Valley Railroad 8419), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you going to do an article on SP 4443. Since not only is it an excursion star, it also is partially preserved.

Draft:Southern Pacific 4443 ~2026-14900-08 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't recall anything from No. 4443 ever being preserved (not even a tender), as all I heard was that it was sent directly to the scrap lines. It's probably best it only gets a mention in the GS-4 page, and I have similarly added an indirect mention of C&NW 1329's runs in the R-1 page. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It got involved in an accident, and the specific part that got preserved was the pilot truck. [1] ~2026-15611-33 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if you have a post card of it as a public domain image. ~2026-15611-33 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

No I don't have a post card with 4443 in it. There are at least three vintage photos of 4443 listed on EBay though. If you really want to upload one on Wikipedia, then you may have to buy one and digitally scan it yourself. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

As stated earlier, it got involved in an accident, and the specific part that got preserved was the pilot truck. ~2026-15611-33 (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Any chance if you can rename this article from Chehalis–Centralia Railroad 15 to Cowlitz, Chehalis & Cascade Railway 15, because when I created this article a while back, I meant to name it Cowlitz, Chehalis & Cascade Railway 15, and I accidentally used the Chehalis–Centralia Railroad name by mistake. ~2026-15890-99 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 15 § Single-member US state steam locomotives on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Just a heads up I created a draft of both LS&I Nos. 19 and 21, I know your busy working on other LS&I locomotive articles, but whenever you get a chance, can you look through them and correct some info mistakes. I did try my best to make it look accurate to the other ones you improved, but I unfortunately don’t have the LS&I railroad books to correct the mistakes by myself. No rush, just whenever you get a chance. ~2026-16974-02 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I may have to do look over those later, as I have to go to work soon today. Until then, I'd recommend trying your best to alter the grammar a little bit to better distinguish them from the other SC-4 pages, as all Wikipedia users here are encouraged to use their own words. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course I’ll try my best. I’m sorry for not writing them in my own words. ~2026-16974-02 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

That's alright, I know you're just trying to contribute. Now for future page creations, especially for locomotives I have little to no knowledge of (there's only so many sources you could work with), I might recommend creating your own sandbox page to make sure everything is up to snuff. It's good for experimentation, too. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I’ll probably think about doing the sandbox suggestion sometime, I think that will help me a lot. I didn’t even know the sandbox page option is an article planned writings set up, I thought it was something else. I was planning to create the last Lake Superior and Ishpeming locomotive article on No. 20, but I’m gonna wait a while until I get the knowledge of it together. ~2026-17384-35 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, making a page for No. 20, or SC-1 No. 35 for that matter, may not be such a good idea, mainly because it's the least documented surviving LS&I steam locomotive, and therefore, not very many sources are readily available on it. I think it's better off having its preservation history points mentioned in No. 18's page, just like how No. 35's history points are in No. 734's page. In fact, I was going to mention No. 20's sale to the city of Allen at the very end of the MHRR and SLRG section, but of course, I can't without a source. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok no problem, it was just a suggestion. But I’ll still take your advice for it. I will hold off on it. ~2026-17384-35 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you kindly rename this article back to its original name as McCloud Railway 19, please ~2026-18343-50 (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. Although, it wouldn't hurt to start a discussion on it's talk page as to why the page should not be moved while pinging the user who redirected it in the first place, along with some admin who could finalize the decision. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. I know I should have started a discussion about the move, but next time, I will respectfully start a discussion next time. ~2026-18343-50 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Southern Pacific 4443

It's here. I was looking around and saw this out of the blue, and decided to take this to your desk. So maybe if there's anything else you can find about this locomotive, that would be great. ~2026-18965-67 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! However, you should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Grand Canyon Railway 29. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Normally I do not use warning templates to warn the regulars, but I will make an exception in your case. You removed a dead URL but did not check for its presence in an archive. Stop it! You should have at least used the {{dead URL}} instead. Even better would have been to check for an archived version. In this case, it was archived several times, the earliest being at web.archive.org/web/20180922133915/https://www.thetrain.com/events/steam-saturdays/. Peaceray (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The Internet Archive has an extension for the Wayback Web, github.com/internetarchive/wayback-machine-webextension, for four of the major browsers. I encourage you to find it for the browser that you use, & then install it. Peaceray (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if this was a mistake, but I did not bother checking the the Wayback Machine, because that particular link technically counts as a self-published source. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Just so you know, I’m not gonna ask to have the title changed back again, because the locomotive is now renamed as Oregon, Pacific and Eastern Railway 19. Even of I started a discussion about it like you said, I don’t know how it would turn out for me, so I’m just gonna respect let the title the way it is. With that being said, is there by and you can fix the title of the article, because the term "&" is in the title instead of "and". You also mentioned that we use 'and' in locomotive names like this, not '&'. Can you properly correct it from "Oregon, Pacific & Eastern 19" to "Oregon, Pacific and Eastern 19" please. ~2026-19448-39 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ~2026-19448-39 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago and North Western 1385 (attempt 1) by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago and North Western 1385. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey my friend, since you mentioned you collect trains books and magazines and use them to provide sources for locomotive articles, do you happen to have any LS&I books or magazines that mentions LS&I No. 20? Because I’m trying my best to write it in my own words without copying and pasting info from the other LS&I steam locomotive articles. ~2026-26849-57 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that I could only use those sources for so much, and as far as surviving steam locomotives go, No. 20 has to be one of, if not the least documented of all the survivors (probably tied with SC-1 No. 35), because in all the sources I have in hand, No. 20 is only foot-noted in any of them. It basically only follows No. 18 over the course of the preservation era from 1985-onwards, except instead of being operationally restored, its just left in storage (and cannibalized for parts on the SLRG), and David Schauer's book from 2015 only passively sums up its history up to that point. I think its better off to redirect that draft and leave No. 20 with mentions on 18 and 19's pages.

I will say this, though, I've been meaning to fix the pages for SC-1 No. 33 and Duluth and Northern Minnesota 14 for a while now, but for No. 33 in particular, I don't have enough reliable sources in hand to cover its post-M&HM history. So if you really want to continue this LS&I streak and look that page over… Someone who likes train writing (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I completely understand. I’ll just redirect the draft instead, thank you for the reasoning. I won’t continue with anyone LS&I steam locomotive articles, since you mentioned the lack of available reliable sources that mentions No. 20. As you said, I completely understand and I won’t continue with more LS&I articles. ~2026-26849-57 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey now, I do appreciate what you've tried to do here, and there are some notable surviving locomotives left that might need their own pages (like Texas and Pacific 316 and maybe Hampton and Branchville 44), but I'm just saying not every surviving steam locomotive ever has a detailed enough history to warrant their own page. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, also what do you mean about redirecting all the LS&I locomotive articles, because I worked so hard on them. I really hate to see them go. ~2026-26849-57 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-28738-16 (talk)

I apologize for deleting your talk page post on Trainsandotherthings's talk page, I misunderstood what you were talking about because I originally thought you wanted the articles deleted permanently and it got me scared for a second. After I reed your post again, I now understand what you talking about. It was a miscommunication. ~2026-28738-16 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey my friend, I wasn’t sure if you got my previous message the other day. But I’m just letting you know again that I’m sorry for deleting you talk page message on Trainsandotherthings’s talk page, I know its against the policy rules to delete someone’s talk page message and I should habe known better, it was because I unfortunately misunderstand what you meant, when you mentioned about redirecting the LS&I locomotive articles, I originally thought you were asking them to be deleted permanently. It got me worried for a second because I’ve worked so hard on creating those articles, but after I reed your post again, now I understand what you mean now. Merging them into one article just like the East Broad Top Railroad Mikado locomotives article, that doesn’t sound too bad to me, but I’ll let you and Trainsandotherthings discuss it privately and see how this goes foward. ~2026-29003-13 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I've just been pondering if that should be the right call or not, since the first halves of these pages are very similar, due to their matching origins. But I think they could also all be left alone and co-exist with an "LS&I Consolidation locomotives" page on the basis that individual vehicle pages co-existing with class pages are very common on Wikipedia, not just with locomotives, but also with, say, Space Shuttles, Battleships, and even automobiles (depending on how notable some are). If you think the individual pages are fine just the way they are, don't be afraid to speak for your mind. Just don't abruptly delete talk page topics. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I know that was wrong. I will say that merging them into one article like the East Broad Top locomotives doesn’t sound like a bad idea, but I’ll let you and Trainsandotherthings decide. ~2026-29003-13 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)