Talk:Caboose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
Selected	This article was displayed as the Portal:Trains "Selected article" for week 9, 2007.

To-do list	Pending tasks for Caboose:	(purge cache –  edit this list)
	Elements that make a Good article Well written. Needs a review from readers outside WikiProject Trains to ensure that the prose is accessible and understandable. Expand the lead section to a more comprehensive summary of the subject, especially to summarize the development, use and demise of this type of rolling stock. Ensure that all jargon is explained in a way that non-experts can understand. Factually accurate and verifiable. Find and add more references, using inline citations where appropriate. Ensure that all references follow standard formatting practices using citation templates as appropriate. Broad in coverage Are there any missing aspects of the topic that need to be included? Is there any information or trivia in the text that can be removed or integrated elsewhere? Neutral point of view Perform an audit of the text to ensure that this is the case. Stable - I think we're ok on this aspect; the information has stayed roughly the same for some time now. Contains images Check the sources and licensing tags on all the images (note: Image:BN caboose, Eola Yard, 1993.jpg, Image:FRED on a stack train.jpg, Image:Cupola caboose.jpg, Image:Bay window caboose CNW 10304.jpg and Image:CR 18065 IN Porter.jpg were all created and uploaded by User:Slambo; please contact him for questions on these specific images) Are the images displayed in such a way that they aren't overly crowding out the article text? Is there another display method that could improve it? Additional and previously identified tasks need to reintroduce material on brake van (need someone who knows British practice) need better dates on EVC usage would be nice to list which roads used bay/EVC types Elaborate on cabooses repurposed for railroad police department and maintenance of way uses
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo

Contents 1 cleanup 2 The former lead photo 3 Major Rewrite 4 History 5 Double negative / the word "caboose" 6 The push toward GA and FA 7 Too many pictures 8 EOT, BOLD

[edit] cleanup

Just cleared out graffiti that looked like something from Uncyclopedia. -- Teshel 05:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right that the paragraph wasn't appropriate for this article (especially when it uses "u" instead of "you"), but the character name is real. I've created Caboose (disambiguation) and linked to it here. slambo 15:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The former lead photo

I had obtained permission from the photographer to use the caboose lineup photo before uploading it here. I am looking through my email archives to find his response... Slambo (Speak) 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Once you get the license sorted out in the image page, I think it would be great if you would put the image back in the article. I think a photo of a caboose in operation is much better than a photo of one on display. Rklawton 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This reminds me of a photo that I took in the mid 1980s on a trip to the Tehachapi Loop; the photo shows a Santa Fe (I think, but it may have been SP) caboose on the end of a train in a siding while another train passes it on the mainline. I'll see if I can find and scan that one. Slambo (Speak) 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find the reply that I got from the photographer, so I went through my own railfanning photos and found the image that's on the article now. Slambo (Speak) 13:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

THat's an excellent image for this point. Thanks for providing it. Mangoe 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Rewrite

I have redone this article to remove the many inaccuracies and duplications in the previous version.

[edit] History

It says:

(These lights were officially what made a train a "train.")

could someone explain this? Pfalstad 15:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The technical definition of a train in official railroad rulebooks in the US is something like "A train is one or more locomotives, with or without cars, displaying markers." There are variations, but basically, as long as the marker lights were turned on, it was officially a train. The lights marked the front and rear of the train (and sometimes also their color denoted the class of the train and its rights over other trains). So, to be a train in the official sense, a single locomotive with marker lights would qualify. I'll see if I can dig up my rulebooks this weekend for an exact quote. Slambo (Speak) 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I just tagged that with ^{[citation needed]} before I saw this discussion. I understand it now, but the language is confusing (I thought it was nonsense-vandalism at first), and could probably be better. A quote from a rulebook would be perfect.L Glidewell 21:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double negative / the word "caboose"

The article says: "The first cabooses, not unlike the nautical originals, were wooden shanties built on flatcars, as early as the 1830s."

This makes no sense... I assume the "nautical originals" weren't buuilt on flatcars? Not only is the use of a a double negative confusing and inappropriate for an article, it seems outright wrong in this situation.

[edit] The push toward GA and FA

While the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner does not yet include tags for marking article importance within the project scope, I would place this one pretty highly in importance. I think it's time we start a concerted effort to get this article up to at least GA level (it's near GA now) with the ultimate goal of raising it to FA status. Toward that end, I've added a bunch of tasks to the todolist (above). So, let's get out all our references and get started. I'll be travelling to Colorado this week on a railfan excursion (visiting the Colorado Railroad Museum and the Cumbres & Toltec), so if there's something you know of in the area, I may be able to photograph it for use here. Slambo (Speak) 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many pictures

This is an article which is heavily dependent upon pictures; the problem is that we're running out of room to have a coherent text as a result. Right now I think we're pretty much maxxed out and outght stick to substituting better images rather than adding more. Mangoe 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In essence, only five caboose types (center cupola, offset cupola, EV, bay window and transfer) were widely employed (excepting historical designs from the early 19th century). Five images would obviously suffice for the caboose itself, and a few more for EOT's, historical models (i.e., prior to the mid-1800's). BDD 17:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EOT, BOLD

Instead of "End-of-Train" device, why not a catchier acronym, like BOLD, or "Back-of-Locomotive-Device"? --72.205.241.187 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the official AAR designation for FRED is EOT. In any case, EOT's are rarely attached to locomotives. I've never seen one used in that fashion, and I was in the industry for many years. BDD 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)