Talk:Rolling stock

message: See London Underground rolling stock and Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock for examples of usage -- both powered and unpowered railway vehicles. Kahuzi 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of usage 

message: I have fixed the rubbish about rolling stock referring only to unpowered vehicles in the UK - this is completely wrong. Locomotives and multiple units are both are powered and both are referred to by everyone in the rail industry as rolling stock. They are just distinct subsets. I don't mean to be rude but the guy who is arguing that they are not clearly knows nothing about the industry its terminology or usage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.172.13 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably for the sake of brevity. G-Man * 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the definition used by Network Rail. See this document . ] which refers specifically to Traction and Rolling Stock suggesting that traction (i.e locomotives) are not considered to be rolling stock. That said if there is no universally accepted meaning of the term then this should be said in the article. G-Man * 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that document I think nicely sums up the dual use of the term. Apparently network rails Rolling Stock acceptance process covers both Rolling Stock and Traction Stock. In other words within the same sentence it uses "rolling stock" to refer to both include and exclude locomotives. I think the only reasonable way forward is to note that the term is used in both ways and inconsistently at that... Gwernol 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to accept Gwernol's suggestion and will amend the article accordingly. Kahuzi 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Does the article really need to include this? "These codes were telegraphese and were analogous to the SMS language of today." It troubles me a bit because it seems to be explaining something which is too general to need explaining here. If you have this sentence here then surely you could add it to many other articles which include some form of short code or abbreviation; further, into this sentence you could add lots of other things, in addition to SMS, to which this is analogous. It feels to me like it's over-explaining this and concentrating on just one example, and I think it should perhaps not be here. What do you think? Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codes sentence 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Rolling stock which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/rolling-stock-market-4380892.html
*:Triggered by \bmarketsandmarkets\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Spam. Deleted.Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Rolling stock]]