Talk:Whyte notation

message: The list here, as well as the "Whyte notation" box in articles on individual wheel arrangements, are missing 2-6-8-0. This arrangement is notable for being an articulated with mismatched sets of drivers. SpaceCaptain 00:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had already added it to the list on this article and created a stub on the locomotive type itself, so I've added it to Template:Whyte types. slambo 13:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
That template was what I was talking about - couldn't think of the word. Thanks for adding it! SpaceCaptain 23:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete list?

message: Yes, an 0-3-0! Four monorail steam locomotives were built to this wheel arrangement, and one is still extant in India. This is not a joke or an attempt at vandalism, it is true! Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  0-3-0 (?) 

message: Since another editor tagged this article as lacking in citations, I've spent some time to find and add citations for the majority of the types listed in this article (and copied many of them down to the individual type articles as appropriate as well).  There are still more types and more statements in the description area that also need citations, but as it is now more than 50% cited, I've removed the  template.  Specific statements in this article that need citations should be noted with  from this point on. Slambo (Speak) 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations added 

message: 0-4-6 and 0-8-6 needed, these were articulated Engerth locomotives. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 4-4-6 is also needed. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More arrangements needed

message: if a tank engine, with a small bin for coal and tanks for water, is able to work and is, say, 0-4-0
why is any engine that has no coal bin or tank, and could never work alone, not noted as a 4-6-2/6 for the leading wheels, driving wheels, trailing wheels, and the tender wheels without which it could not run ? Dave Rave (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely because many tenders are interchangeable with others that could have different wheel arrangements, such as for example the South African Class 19D 4-8-2 and, in fact, the whole family from 19, 19A, etc. Then there are the Garratts that, in South Africa and Rhodesia, could run with or without their water tenders depending on the distance that needed to be travelled. André Kritzinger (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  a non obvious question on wheels 

message: Please double-check the following links and entries in the table of this article:
* 4-6-2+2-2-4
* 2-6-0+2-4-2
* 8-8-8
Please do not remove this hoax-warning from this talk page, until this issue has been completely resolved! --NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles have now been deleted. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax 

message: Hi Mindfrieze. I notice you added a column to the table in Whyte notation to show the number of units produced; the actual number for limited production types or a ballpark figure forWo high-volume types. Your totals are incomplete, however, since it only shows the data in respect of locomotives produced in the USA for domestic use and export. What about the locomotives produced in the rest of the world?May I suggest you rather add this info to the wheel arrangement articles themselves, as a paragraph at the end of the "United States of America" section in each article. The production figures may already be included in some of these articles, but then you can at least double-check the data for accuracy in the process and maybe add American-Rails.com as an additional reference. André Kritzinger (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi André Kritzinger.  Thanks for the feedback.  I came to this article recently trying to determine the most popular or most common locomotives in history.  Adding production numbers to the table seemed like a good way to present that info for comparison.  Adding that info to the individual articles would be good, but would not be useful for my purpose.  I see that these numbers may be incomplete, but I don't have sufficient resources to update them.  It was my hope more knowledgeable and dedicated Wikipedians − perhaps you − would be able to refine and expand this info.  If it is an infeasible endeavor, I have no objection to you reverting his article.  Thanks again for your help. -Mindfrieze (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of units produced 

message: For locomotive type names, you need to give the origin of each name.  For example, the merger of which two railroads is commemorated in Consolidation?  Who's Jenny Lind?  Who's Jervis?  The latter are well-known persons.
Until you undertake that effort, at least hyperlink names in the table which are simple entities having an article in Wikipedia.  This would be very easy to do.  Hyperlink to the articles on Jenny Lind, John Bloomfield Jervis, etc.  Ditto Mastodon, Mikado, Mohawk, etc.; and even place names like Boston, Bulgaria, etc.
The next step is, once an article on a locomotive type has been written, then hyperlink to it, not the article on the entity of which the locomotive is the namesake.  This has already been done with e.g. Crampton, which is linked to the article on the Crampton-type locomotive, not the man Crampton.  (The article itself of course provides a link to him.)
On the other hand, with types having more generic names, like Northern, until an article is written about the type, likely no hyperlink is meaningful.
Jimlue (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of names

message: I have never seen the 2-2-2 called anything but the "Patentee type", and that's not some obscure thing I dredged up in some old book. I started reading about locomotives like ten years ago and I have come across mention of the "Patentee type" numerous times, I considered that one of the better known and more prominent types in early locomotives. Never once seen reference to a "2-2-2 Single" until now. That's like listing the 4-6-2 as the "St. Paul Type". Yes, that term was probably used by someone at some point, but almost everyone knows that type as the Pacific now.  Idumea47b (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Patentee or maybe Jenny Lind, but not simply 'single'. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-2-2 

message: I love the way the wheels are shown, and with this proposal, we will keep them. We can just add images alongside them.
Example, for the 0-10-0, we can add a picture of an 0-10-0 underneath the wheel design like so.
 IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be images of the locomotives as another form of an example?