Talk:Undercarriage

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Engineering

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles

Requested move 27 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: rename. There is a clear consensus that "undercarriage" should be a disambiguation page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undercarriage (disambiguation) → Undercarriage – Undercarriage is just a supporting framework[1], and "undercarriage" is frequently used in connection with automobiles, trains, etc, so all the landing gear links should link directly to "landing gear", while "undercarriage" becomes a disambiguation page. 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support. All the different "meanings" are essentially the same - the underframe of a vehicle. An article with links and a History section would be a great improvement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I concur that "All the different "meanings" are essentially the same - the underframe of a vehicle.", as said above. But I'm going to oppose the move as Wikipedia doesn't need yet another article on undercarriages. Undercarriage is a word, that is used in several technological disciplines, to refer to what is underneath and carries the weight (or in engineering terms) transfers the loads to the surface. The current disambig article does just fine pointing the the existing Wikipedia articles that describe this use in the various fields and industries where it is used. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the issue. If you search for undercarriage you end up on landing gear not the disambiguation page. I believe what the proposal is that it will just bring you to the disambiguation list as opposed to landing gear, where people looking for say cars chassis don't want to be. XFEM Skier (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Numerous dictionaries give for their first definition of "undercarriage" the supporting framework of a motor vehicle. Examples include the Anmerican Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Webster's New World Dictionary. Though other dictionaries provide the aircraft definition first, the mix shows that there is simply no one dominant use. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would think that more people could come to undercarriage for cars then airplanes. I was surprised by the redirect actually. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Despite the fact that Landing gear was only moved to that title from Undercarriage a few weeks ago, there really isn't a clear primary topic for the word. - BilCat (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Makes sense to me to do it that way. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

A related discussion occurred at talk:landing gear where it was determined that "undercarriage" is ambiguous. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"related" says it all, most participants did not address the issue of disambiguation which is the key concern here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is the material in the current disambig article as of 18:45, 27 January 2014. N2e (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Undercarriage is the part of a moving vehicle that is underneath the main body of the vehicle. This may refer to:
"The landing gear of an aircraft, spacecraft, or launch vehicle booster rocket

"The chassis of an automobile

"The undercarriage assembly of a train car or locomotive incorporating the train wheels, suspension, brakes and, in powered units, the traction motors

"The tractor treads of a tractor or tank."

If there is a move, please WP:FIXDABLINKS first. There are only two, so it shouldn't be hard. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further comments

Shouldn't this talk page be moved to Talk:Undercarriage along with the article page? - BilCat (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would think so. I just don't think any editor has yet effected the move. The info above, recently closed by a closer I presume, is merely tying a ribbon around the discussion and formalizing the consensus. Someone will yet have to effect the move to make it a true disambig article, one that meets disambig standards. And I would expect the Talk page to move along with it at that time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I wasn't clear, the main page was already moved, but the talk page was left behind. The main page was converted into a stub article from a proper DAB page after the move. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I thought the decision was to make the article a disambig, and this article, the one associated with this Talk page, is still not a proper disambig. But maybe I'm confused by all the different pages. N2e (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The decision was to move Undercarriage (disambiguation) to Undercarriage to take up the space vacated by the article which had been moved to Landing gear. The move took place today, but the talk page was left behind. That is what my original comment was about. The subsequent conversion of the DAB page to a stub article was undiscussed. There is no longer a DAB page as such. Hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. THe move you described (from Undercarriage (disambiguation) to Undercarriage to take up the space vacated by the article which had been moved to Landing gear) was a good idea. I agree that the conversion of the disambig article to a stub was undiscussed, and believe it ought to remain a mere and basic disambig page. Having said that, as a stub, the article standards on verifiability and sources are higher, so perhaps it will move back to a disambig page in an emergent way. But I'm fine with supporting an editor to change it back more directly, per no consensus for the change. N2e (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat, wow, in the archived discussion above, you wrote, "Despite the fact that Landing gear was only moved to that title from Undercarriage a few weeks ago, there really isn't a clear primary topic for the word." Now, you just reverted the work of three editors trying to create that very primary topic you bemoaned the lack of. Why? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't "bemoaning" anything, merely stating. But there was no discussion of creating an article in the move discussion, beyond your brief mention of expansion,and that could well have affected the outcome of the discussion. - BilCat (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted three editors and a bot once again. I retained the substance of your complaint in my edit, why do you insist on removing other unrelated edits that three other editors (and a bot) have seen fit to make? If you really want a discussion where three other editors evidently feel it is unnecessary, why don't you start one yourself? Oh, well, I have just done that for you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me bothering to discuss the issue first, and waiting for another editor to agree with me that page should be reverted to its DAB state. Next time you make edits I disagree with, I'll be sure to revert them immediately, especially since you apparently don't participate in such discussions until after you've been reverted. - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing to contribute to the discussion at that time. Perhaps you failed to notice that in my revert I did in fact respect your restoration of the disambig status. I reverted your revert for a different reason which I have tried to draw to your attention. May I ask you again why you insist on reverting constructive edits made by several other editors - edits which had nothing to do with the disambig issue but were aimed at improving the standard of the page? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could have made a case for the conversion of the DAB page into the article, and it might well have been compelling. It's not my fault you chose not to contribute at the time of the initial discussion. As to why I restored the version that I did, it's because, as far as I could tell, those edits were beyond what should be on a DAB page. DAB pages don't generally have citations because they shouldn't have info that needs to be cited, nor do they need extensive definitions. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah! Thank you. Light dawns. So if one wishes to challenge, say, the idea that a tracked vehicle's undercarriage refers solely to its tracks, how should one go about that on a DAB page? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good! :) Ask on the talk page? - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revision of status

This page is presently a disambig page. I propose that we allow it to become a proper article, whose content should be structured so as to present a natural disambiguation for where the term is used in various specialist areas. Do we need a mountain of bureaucracy for this - templates stuffing up, notices posted around the place, etc? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources that describe "undercarriage" in generic term that also bring together all these specialized terms together under one umbrella with some examples of those specifics, then sure I think it can be converted into a regular article. If the reliable sources always discuss the topics only in specific manner whether it is for airplanes, automobiles, trains or tractors, then there is no reliable sources that establish the generic term of "undercarriage" that can be applied to any type of vehicles. In that case, a disambiguation page with the standard "may refer to" cause seems appropriate. Good luck. Z22 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you/we start a draft article at Draft:Undercarriage and see how it goes? (or a stub article at Undercarriage (term) ) Some proper article should result before changing this away from being a disambiguation page (there's already similar proposals sitting in draft space for replacing disambiguation pages with conceptdab articles) -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ns. un'dercarriage, the supporting framework under a carriage or wagon: the landing-gear of an aircraft, or its main part.

Anything is better than the false and misleading tosh currently masquerading as a disambig page, it's not rocket science. But it has become such an immensely bureaucratic process to state the bleedin' obvious that I am taking this page off my watchlist, I really don't care enough to argue about angels on pinheads. Don't bother to reply to me, just get yourselves all a life and enjoy it while you can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you never actually explained what's false or misleading about the "tosh currently masquerading as a disambig page". If the definition is wrong, then state what's wrong about it so it can be corrected, but that actually has nothing to do with the page being a DAB page or an article. By the way, don't be so judgemental: arguing "about angels on pinheads" is how some of us enjoy our lives! Live and let live, as they say. - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I oppose making the disambig page into a full article page simply because from what I saw before (in the short time it existed as a non-consensus article page), it was not clear from the sources that the claims for the various different uses were all kosher. If however someone wants to build up a draft Undercarriage article page in a sandbox, and then make a new proposal then, that would allow all reviewers to see whether the topic might meet WP:GNG and whether all the claims in the article for the various uses of undercarriage are sufficiently well sourced to become an independent article. N2e (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]