Talk:KiHa 122 series

Notability

WP:N-please provide third party references, also read WP:CRYSTAL.PB666 ^yap 15:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is about the KiHa 122 series article, right? I have read WP:N. Firstly, trains are inherently notable, and are not covered by the notability guidelines. This should also be clear from the wording in the tag you added to the top of the article (twice). Secondly, I dispute the WP:CRYSTAL claim (although I did not remove the tag), as there is no speculation in the article on my part. Finally, I notice that you don't appear to have read my comments about marking major edits as "minor" and about including an edit summary, which is unfortunate. --DAJF (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Who says trains are inherently notable? There is no policy or guideline.

Even if they were future trains are not necessarily notable. Also, you should consider that the name of the power plant manufacturer and the engine manufacturer is not given. These essential facts are missing and take away from the credibility of the article. The reference provided is in Japanese and is not suitable as a notability reference in an English encyclopedia. Additional references are required. I am always puzzled by the fact that people think that verifyable references do not apply to their genre of articles. Verifyability applies to every article except disambiguation pages. Wikipedia:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines.PB666 ^yap 15:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you don't mind me stepping in. A statement like "all X are inherently notable" should be interpreted as "any time X is AFD'd it is always overwhelming keep". So with a topic like trains, which are not going to be deleted no matter what, there's no point in tagging it for notability. Another "X" is high schools. Other types of examples abound (rivers, towns...). As for "future train", we're talking about a month or so until the test run.

WP:Crystal Does anyone remember the fusion reactor that was supposed to be completed by 1980. Can you prove to me that the article is not a hoax? Therefore if you cannot provide proof it needs to be verifyable. Are you daring an AfD?PB666 ^yap 16:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have to take what I said as a confrontation or challenge? Nobody's daring anything. I'm just explaining to you how Wikipedia works. If you weren't aware of it, now you know. AFDing it is pointless. If you want to waste everybody's time, feel free. What does this have to do with some fusion reactor? It's verified by the source in the article. --C S (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The missing info that is apparently damaging will surely be supplied within a reasonably short time. What's the rush? As for Japanese references, certainly they are suitable. Just because you can't read Japanese does not disqualify a reference from English Wikipedia. We certainly have never required that references to notability be in English; that would disqualify a lot of international topics of importance.

Finally, I appreciate you have a pet peeve about people who don't think verifiability is needed. I don't see at all the relevance here. DAJF has suitably provided a reference, and he has no trouble verifying it. --C S (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just follow <random article> and you will quickly find 100s of articles, poorly created that have not been improved. Tell me, is the engine an electric, diesel or other. Who is the manufacturer? What is the maximum speed? How can you write a page about a train, future or present, and not describe its specification, only its "proposed" route.PB666 ^yap 16:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have a pet peeve here clearly. But so what about other articles? Why is everything including this article somehow have to be part of some grand problem? What's wrong with the press release source? --C S (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

JR West operates Kishin Line, therefore it is not a news source, therefore it cannot be considered news. I have not called for deletion, yet. My peeve here is about this article and the fact it describes two genre of locomotives but gives little information about them, nor the company(s) that is building them, but points to a vested information source which, to top that off, cannot be verified because it is written in Japanese. I don't mind that off-english references are used, or that vested news sources are used, but when the only source of information is vested, not in english, then there is no way for an english reading wikipedian to verify that information. On top of that important information about the subject is missing. Manufacturer, CarLength, CarHeight, Weight, Capacity/Unit, Powerplant (Diesel, Diesel/Electric, Diesel hydrolic, Diesel hybrid). I am not completely unaware of the subject material I took one of these form-factor vehicles from Wakai "station" (Alias: a platform in the middle of nowhere) to Uwajima, Shikoku. It is more or less a school bus on rails (not going to discuss that 'toilet' either). These single car units are used in unpopulated areas and generally because the terrain is too treacherous for bus traffic (i.e. tunneling through the stone age), average speeds are ~60 km/h, though it is conceivable that in descents on strait-aways they reach 100 km/h(its slow!). Even so I have worked on trains articles less notable, but this one really does qualify on WP as vaporware.PB666 ^yap 02:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of Seats?

Fine, we know they have 2+1 Seats, but how many rows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.198 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the seating/standing capacity to the infobox. --DAJF (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)