Talk:Electro-Motive Diesel/Archives/2017

Single article?

Frankly, EMDiesels is not the same company as General Motors' EMD; it was not EMDiesels that "killed the steam locomotive", but GM-EMD, and EMDiesels cannot take credit for that legacy. A lot of articles about EMD locomotives link back to this article, and EMDiesels didn't build the vast majority of these. I suggest an article split.

70.105.195.189 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by Deeday-UK are destroying the history of the old company. To what end is this being done? I wrote this on my talk page, "All this gets back as to whether this should be a single stand alone article or two articles. The article is a train wreck as it stands. The old company and the new company are not the same. You're edits prove the point that keeping the old history with the new is incompatible. Thank you for destroying history and proving my point." Can this article, Electro-Motive Diesel, serve all or does the earlier history need to be a separate page? --SSW9389 10:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

SSW9389, please be reasonable and explain clearly what you disagree with, instead of launching into wild accusations of "destroying" information. This is the paragraph in question with my latest edits:

Electro-Motive Diesel traces its roots to the Electro-Motive Engineering Corporation, a manufacturer of gasoline-electric self-propelled rail cars founded in 1922 and later renamed Electro-Motive Company (EMC). In 1930, General Motors purchased Electro-Motive Company and the Winton Engine Co., combining the two to form its Electro-Motive Division (EMD) in 1941.

In 2005, GM sold EMD to Greenbriar Equity Group and Berkshire Partners, which formed Electro-Motive Diesel to facilitate the purchase. In 2010, Progress Rail Services completed the purchase of Electro-Motive Diesel from Greenbriar, Berkshire, and others.

What exactly in your view is wrong with it? What I removed is simply repetition of information already covered a few lines before, like the fact that Caterpillar now owns EMD through its subsidiary Progress Rail Services.

All this has got nothing to do with splitting articles between new and old companies; I simply put some order in what was a messy and overgrown article lead. If you think it should be tweaked further, then go on and do it, but please avoid this sort of panicky crying wolf and associated blanket-reverts; it's not helpful. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The early history in the lead needs to be preserved because of the number of articles that link to this article. You're attempted edits to the historical content of the article are not helpful. Your attack on the former history of GM-EMD is disturbing. --SSW9389 11:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

SSW9389, for your convenience, here is how the paragraph on the early history read before my edits:

Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. traces its roots to the Electro-Motive Engineering Corporation, founded in 1922. In 1930, General Motors Corporation purchased the Winton Engine Co. and Winton's primary customer of gasoline engines, the Electro-Motive Company (a manufacturer of gasoline-electric self-propelled rail cars), combining the two to form GM's Electro-Motive Division (EMD) on January 1, 1941.

Compared to the first excerpt above in italics – the current version – which part exactly of my edit would be an 'attack on the former history of GM-EMD'? I've simply clarified the paragraph, mentioning the renaming of the early EMC, and simplified the timeline by mentioning only the years, leaving full dates to the article body (where they are already mentioned). Elsewhere in the lead I've removed a second link to Progress Rail Services Corporation, per WP:LEADLINK, plus other general clean-up; and all of this would be 'disturbing'? so much for assuming good faith. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I had a message left on my talk page about this group of edits but wasn't able to take the time to research until now. The lead section should have enough detail to summarize the article body without going into so many specific details that it is hard to read. Looking at the results of the editing today, I'm more inclined to see them as constructive and the current text as more concise and easier to read. In this case, I don't see harm in what was taken out because the summary history is still there and what was removed were details that remain in the article body.

As to the secondary question about whether a split is appropriate or not, the sale from GM to Greenbriar occurred in 2005 and the sale from Greenbriar to Progress/Caterpillar in 2010. If there have been substantial changes since 2010 in the corporate structure or in the product line offered (for example, how many new locomotive models have been introduced since 2005?), then I would say that we need to work on a split, but as it is, I don't see enough of a difference to warrant a split yet. If the article is split, updating the links to point to separate EMC/Winton, GM-EMD and EMDiesel articles is not as big of a problem (even though there are currently more than 1000 pages linking to the current article); this could be handled in a relatively short time by a team of WP:TWP editors familiar with the company history to separate them out. There have been other article splits across WP for articles with similar sized links lists that were accomplished without major pains to get the new links right, so I'm not worried about the logistics of carrying out a split here. Slambo (Speak) 20:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Charles F. Kettering

The articles says Charles F. "Boss" Kettering was in charge of the development of the EMD 567 Diesel engine. According to a copy of an ASME paper published in 1951 on the development of the 567, E.W. Kettering, Boss Kettering's son, was in charge of development. Comments --38.69.12.5 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems plausible. Over on the Talk:Charles F. Kettering page, Grumpyoldgeek pointed out the confusion between C.F. Kettering and his son E.W. Kettering:

The fifth paragraph in "Later Career" clearly confuses C.F. with his son E.W. The statement "Let it suffice to say that I don't recall having any trouble with the dipstick" can be found in E.W's paper [1]. I don't believe C.F. did any work on large 2-stroke diesel engines. Grumpyoldgeek (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This was before they deleted the misattributed quote. I don't know enough about the history to make an informed decision about this possible confusion, but this seems like an opportunity for someone with knowledge/research ability to improve this article. -- RobLa (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)