Talk:Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810/C810A

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810/C810A article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to merge and move to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810/C810A. Editors agreed that the two trains are similar enough to be covered in a single article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810A should be merged into Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810 per WP:DUP. The articles are virtually copies of each other, with the C810A train differing from the C810 simply in few minor cosmetic details. As the C810A article states: "There is little difference between its older counterpart, the C810. However, its headlights are vertical instead of horizontal and luminously white instead of yellow installed on its predecessor. Its train number is underlined." and "Its interior design bear little difference compared to its older counterparts". These are short articles and it would be simple to include the minimal content on the new trains in the original article. The company manufactured some additional cars for use on the same lines as the original cars, and made a few cosmetic changes to the new cars. We don't need to duplicate the original article simply to list the cosmetic changes. Meters (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the C810A article was created by the now-blocked user:Eeditflyover, who was evading a block on user:Profile101, the creator of the C810 article. Meters (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Both articles are very similar and this article can mention the minor differences between the C810 and the C810A variant. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810D should be merged here as well. No need for 3 seperate articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on this point for now, as the new trains are two-cars and might actually be different. - oahiyeel ^talk 00:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Agreed. The new title can be Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810/C810A with the differences for the newer trains listed. - oahiyeel ^talk 00:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this one too. Also oppose C810D merging per Oahiyeel. S5A-0043^Talk 11:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose current proposal. I don’t like the current merge proposal because while the trains are indeed similar and have similar names, I’m not exactly fond of listing them under the generic name “C810”, because they are still different trains. An extreme analogy I can think of would be putting C151A, C151B and C151C should they not have much differences. These are procured under different contracts, and should be indicated as such. Unlike C951 which does not have much differences with C951A, and which C951A is almost unheard of (most normal people and even some train enthusiasts group them just into C951), there are people that group these under different categories - C810 and C810A. Alternative proposal is that the articles are still merged, but the article prose (and perhaps article title) is rewritten to indicate that these are under the same family, but are strictly speaking different trains. I can’t think of any good solutions for this so far, but unless a new solution is found consider my vote an oppose on merging. S5A-0043^Talk 21:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what name do you propose for the merged article? Meters (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about titling similar to E5 and H5 Series Shinkansen? Like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810 & C810A? — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 11:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone proposed the C951 solution (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Mover C810/C810A) which for some unknown reason I didn't think of and overcomplicated things (as I regularly do in my daily life). S5A-0043^Talk 11:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This works also. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 11:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The two trains, being similar, would be better discussed in a single article. Just because the trains are ordered under two separate orders doesn't mean that they are different/notable enough to warrant separate articles. R22-3877 (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 11:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, tiny articles and merging the information would allow for differences to be more clearly explained to the reader (just having both pictures on the same page would help). No opposition to a name change, and of course the article should be clear about the topic. CMD (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.