Talk:Motive power

message: lovin this article anon.
:: Me too, This explains why locomotives are described as motive power. I wonder if we could relate that some how on this page with a link to Locomotive {steam) and how thermodynamic motive power replaced steam technology with electro motive and diesel motive. I am adding Category:Trains to this article for this purpose. Greetings, Paptilian (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Steam locomotives use thermodynamics as well. You should not add material to pages from your own original research, but instead work from information found in reliable sources. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I added three forms of motive power to the locomotives and referenced them here. Any original research has only been to link the articles, I've not added any material from other sources. Thanks for responding. Paptilian (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You added links to Thermodynamics, Electromotive force and Electro-diesel locomotive to the article Rail transport, but doing that is original research. Please go and read about what original research is, as you have it exactly backwards. Original research is when you make up facts and add them to an article. You should not do that. Instead, you should find a reliable source that describes rail transport, and use that source to decide what information to add. You then cite that source so other readers can verify the information. Your addition was not only original research, but it was also incorrect. Your statement "Electromotive force explains motive power for electric locomotives." is incorrect. I removed your original research from the Rail transport article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tutorial, This stuff helps me learn.Paptilian (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loving this article 

message: The entirety of this article is source and the template should go away. Paptilian (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You perhaps don't understand what a source is, on Wikipedia. WP:V is a good place to start, followed by WP:RS. This article has no sources at all and the template pointing that out is highly appropriate. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up with this template? 

message: This should have been discussed first.  Particularly as a side-effect of that is that all the inbound links are now being stripped away by the DAB process.   Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see the main problem here as railways. "Motive power" has a widespread use there as the machinery providing power, rather than the physical concept. It's also by far the most widely used location for this precise term (physicists just don't use it - I don't know if Victorians did). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Andy Dingley and MB, I misread those articles when I was doing the dab fixes this morning. But neither of those fixes would be correct if this was simply reverted.  The prior article had nothing to do with the concept of "locomotive". That was on the Motive power (disambiguation), which I didn't know existed until I had finished the dabs. The dab should remain, and I'll go correct those I got wrong this morning. But by far the most corrections were to the combination motive power, in which clearly the correct use should be either motive power or motive power, and what can be salvaged of the original article incorporated into the power (physics) article, with sources. Onel5969 TT me 16:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed conversion to a dab