User talk:Pechristener

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Pechristener, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Muller Ice Shelf. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TRAXX, Octeon

Can you tell something about how widespread individual axle control is in the TRAXX family (which subtypes/generations have it)? Also, can you perhaps give a source (even in print) for the water-cooled GTO thyristor based inverters of the MTAB Iore being in the Camilla family? --Rontombontom (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single axle control is in the following Traxx locomotives in use: SBB Re 484, all TRAXX 2E

Iore water could Camilla converter: see here and here: Vaclav Dvoracek, Jan Olovsson: Neue Lokomotiven für die Erzbahn Lulea - Kiruna - Narvik. In: Schweizer Eisenbahn-Revue. Nr. 3, 2001, ISSN 1022-7113, S. 116-121 --Pechristener (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danke sehr! I already used the SKL link in the TRAXX article, but sadly it doesn't provide a direct (non-WP:OR) link to the Iore. However, the Schweizer Eisenbahn-Revue source sounds very promising. Could you perhaps quote the part mentioning the Camilla (if it's not too long)? (It may be worth to include in a citation or might contain additional details worth to mention.) Also, in the German Wikipedia article on the IORE, there is a(n unsourced) claim that the locos were also made in Oerlikon -- maybe the Schweizer Eisenbahn-Revue article has details on this? --Rontombontom (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably you are looking for an article about Iore saying that there are Camilla converters inside. This will be hard to find since the name Camilla was only for a very short time promoted by Adtranz. The thing is that big companies like Adtranz or Bombardier do always original research in their official articles and press conferences, which is often used to form the own history in a certain way as direct by sales and PR-departments . Therefore the SKL link may be a better source since it is more third-party. I will be only able to check the Schweizer Eisenbahn-Revue when I'm back home. Since I was ghostwriting and proofreading this article it may be also WP:OR. The German Wikipedia is not really correct by claiming that the locos were also made in Oerlikon. I corrected this, since there have been made only a few parts for the first locomotive in Oerlikon. The truth is: Oerlikon - Project Management, overall technical design, design of electrical part, Kassel - design of mechanical part, final assembly.--Pechristener (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the added details! Regarding your role on the SER article, well, heh - if I am the editor who enters the citation and sees the original quote and translates/paraphrases it himelf, then I think it's not original research :-) But I think you yourself are covered under WP:COS.

Regarding Camilla: I first took an interest in this when I only knew that the Iore has water-cooled GTO, and wondered if it is an application of AEG's technology in the 12X, or something else (which it turned out to be). So IMO a source linking the converters of the Iore to the ABB/Adtranz Switzerland/Oerlikon development effort is enough even without the Camilla brand name, but "water-cooled" and "Octeon" in the SKL article is insufficient to verify that the subject is the same converter type.

Regarding third-party sources, WP:SOURCES is written with quite some if and whens: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." (Third-party sources are an ironclad rule only to establish Wikipedia:Notability for an article, not every statement in it.) IMHO technical specifications and brand names are fields where third-party sources just as or more reliable than those from the manufacturer (such as reports issued by testing institutes or approval decisions by rail authorities) are rarely if at all publicly available.

Regarding 'big companies doing original research', do you mean retouching their own history? ;-) There is that, however, locomotives and main parts come with nameplates which won't be 'retouched', so I think the retouching can be rolled back and archived company releases that are contemporary with releases are reliable enough. (I first started to re-edit the history sections of the TRAXX and Iore articles because of the retroactive Bombardier TRAXX designation of pre-2003, even pre-Bombardier deliveries.) --Rontombontom (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the statement. I'm sure covered under WP:COS, were I emphasize the section This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. In fact, expert input is encouraged and experts often have specific knowledge of the relevant literature. I usually use my knowledge to fix errors in Wikipedia.

Regarding Camilla converters this may be of help.

a) Link between Camilla and ABB Switzerland

b) Camilla converter is in the following vehicles: ICN, Iore, FS Class E464, FS Class E405] and Russian EP10.--Pechristener (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andreasberg Light Railway Comment

Hi Pechristener. Just to let you know that "short line railroad" is a specifically U.S. term that is not recognized by the International Union of Railways and would not generally be used for railways in Europe. As it was a rack railway, I have moved it to St. Andreasberg rack railway for now. It often helps to discuss such moves beforehand on the talk page if you're not sure. Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt, its true that the term "short line railroad" originated from U.S. but this does not mean that it can't be used for an European road, since also the European Union uses the term. That the International Union of Railways does not recognize the term is not true, at least it can be found several times on their web site. Ok, the current lemma is also good, but it does not translate the term Kleinbahn. In my opinion it is ok to discuss this sort of issues after the move. Wikipedia does not prescribe to ask for a permission to fix something, which is obviously wrong.--Pechristener (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Short line railroad" is not a good term for two reasons: first, it is a specific class of North American goods line and St Andreasberg was neither American nor goods-only. Second, the UIC and Europe use "railway" not "railroad". My research shows that the term Kleinbahn most nearly equates to what English speakers and railways would call a "light railway", but that may not be so accurate here I agree. BTW I couldn't find any instance of "short line railroad" on the UIC site except a document referring to US railroads. But hey, it's good to talk, and we both have the same aim to add information on German railways (and other topics) to English Wikipedia. I have loved living in Germany and being near the Harz too, hence my passion. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The map

Regarding this edit summary, I made the original quick fix (attributed to your original version), which should have been fine. You were contacted once the extra typos were located. An easy way to avoid this in the future would be to proof your grammar prior to uploading. Thanks for your contributions, they are appreciated - just wanted you to know "why people do not contact [you] on [your] page (automatically) if there is a problem with the map". Garchy (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon - have you fixed any of the typos? This version looks exactly the same as the last - same typos. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Garchy:You can only see the changes once you emptied your browser's chash.--Pechristener (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help, and quick reply to this - your map contributions are much appreciated! Cheers, Garchy (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway train

Thanks for your edits. I don't understand German enough, and am not enough of a technical expert, to know what an "angled cock" is (that, and there's a few mistakes with the English, but then again there's plenty of mistakes with my German so not complaining). Do you think it would be accurate to rephrase this simply as "Brakes improperly set"? Danke, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments. You don't have to be a technical expert, because I can take this role. I also don't know what is angled cock, but I added the definition of an angle cock in the Railway_air_brake article in the section about accidents and a link to it in the referred text of the runaway article. My native language is not English, so feel free to correct my English. I did already some rewording my self, maybe it was not a good idea to do the edit late night.

>> Do you think it would be accurate to rephrase this simply as "Brakes improperly set"?

No, definitely not. We are not doing the usual superficial journalism here. Let's try to keep it technically precise. If not understandable then please speak up.--Pechristener (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of EU43 (disambiguation)

The article EU43 (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded cancellation request removed, as both subtopics are not directly linked to the corresponding page, but via a redirect. Ordinary readers might be confused when they read the top hat note in connection with the main article. Pechristener (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]