Talk:Boxcar

Trains High‑importance

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article lacks references.

Packaging

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Packaging, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of containers, packaging, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PackagingWikipedia:WikiProject PackagingTemplate:WikiProject PackagingContainers articles

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Worthless

No capacity information? What a waste of space! I know the information is available, both volume and weight limitations, for livestock (and other freight which may shift) as well as boxes.71.29.173.173 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is and it isn't. Looking at three of the four US class 1s, I see some specs but they are on the vague side. Once you get away from NORAC loading gauge, the sizes are all over the place. Mangoe (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By way of explanation, NORAC loading gauge Peter Horn User talk 01:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology exception

Re Boxcar#Notes, it would be useful to list all exceptions to the the use of AAR terms. Peter Horn User talk 17:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be useful, if there are more exceptions. Can you name more exceptions besides the South Australian Railways one that's already noted? – voidxor 21:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than perhaps, but not for sure, Russia and China I don't think there are any. Peter Horn User talk 00:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you come across any references for those, feel free to add them. – voidxor 01:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reference with Page Needed tag already present

@Peter Horn: In this edit, it appears that you copied a reference from Loading gauge. That reference was already tagged {{pn}}. Do you have a copy of the book, Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice? If so, would you please provide the page number (or range) that supports the claim, per WP:BURDEN. Thanks! – voidxor 22:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidxor:. I have the 1970 edition of the Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice. pp 88 thru 133 show dimensions of various boxcars. Peter Horn User talk 23:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal web sites

RESOLVED

Remove loading-gauge diagrams from here (as redundant), since that article is conveniently linked from this one.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Voidxor: Hi, Since you removed AAR "plate" loading gauge diagrams compared to UIC (pdf & Autocad) as being unreliable, you should also remove all these below for the same reason because they are all derived from the same website.

AAR loading gauges
AAR -Plate-B
AAR -Plate-C
AAR -Plate-D
AAR -Plate-E
AAR -Plate-F

That said, the website IS accurate when compared to other sources.
Peter Horn User talk 02:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I fail to see the relevance of these AAR loading gauge diagrams outside of the Loading gauge article. I don't think they should be included here, or on any other rolling stock articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less worried about the diagrams than I am about self-published sources. However, you make me wonder if diagrams that convey data should have footnote-style references in the captions.

While I understand that information on Marc's website may correct, but that's beside the point of WP:SPS.

Trainsandotherthings makes a great point about how the Loading Gauge subsection isn't needed here. This article already addresses the most common dimensions of boxcars, and the Further Information hatnote provides a nice section link to Loading gauge if anybody needs the gritty details of why boxcars' sizes are limited the way they are. I'll be bold and go ahead and remove it. If the consensus of this discussion reverses, feel free to revert me. – voidxor 13:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That all said, any diagram taller than Plate-C is not featured in the 1970 edition of the Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia which I have. These should be mentioned by 1997. Peter Horn User talk 16:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My stance is that loading gauge should absolutely be mentioned, such as how hi-cube boxcars are discussed. But dropping in all of the AAR loading gauge diagrams is excessive. I could maybe see the argument for 1, no more than that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All current AAR loading gauges are here Peter Horn User talk 21:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but doesn't address what I said at all. I don't think they are relevant to the article regardless of where you found them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Not quite old chap. The height of any boxcar falls within any of the AAR outlines (Plates) with the Hi-cube being a special case.

@Voidxor: According to this AAR Plate-D does not exist Peter Horn User talk 23:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You two know more about trains than I do. My stance is simply that details of tangential subjects are best left to linked articles. That is the beauty of an online encyclopedia; readers can click a link if they want to know more about, say, loading gauges. In the meantime, it helps us by not duplicating information in multiple articles. – voidxor 01:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with voidxor on this point. In my opinion, the loading gauge diagrams are distracting here and do not help convey the subject to readers. Loading gauge diagrams belong on the loading gauge article, which is just a click away since it is linked here. Yes, loading gauge as it pertains to boxcars should be discussed in this article, but the diagrams themselves should not be included here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current source

The current source for loading gauges, including Plate D1 and Plate D2, is this Peter Horn User talk 21:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re Talk:Boxcar#Personal web sites On second thought, there exists no Plate D and according to this there are minor dimensional errors. Peter Horn User talk 02:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

@Trainsandotherthings:, @Voidxor: There was a typo in <gallery mode="packed" hetghts="160px"> making it impossible to adkuet the size 0f the images

The gallery allowa [[File:Boxcar (PSF).jpg|thumb|upright|left|Illustration of a boxcar being unloaded by means of a es[[wheelbarrow]]]] to be positioned visually in the correct ssction. Peter Horn User talk 23:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Horn: In almost all situations, it is best to leave the images "floating" because that allows article text to flow around them. Keep in mind, different readers have different screen sizes, resolutions, and orientations—going right down to the small screens of smartphones (probably the most popular device type nowadays). The way you see the article is not the way others see it, which is why we have standard formatting on Wikipedia. Galleries are not the standard way of formatting images on Wikipedia!

Images only need to be near the relevant text; that's per WP:IG, which goes on to say, "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article..."

So please—we've been telling you for awhile now—knock it off with the gallery formatting. — voidxor 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text was not floating the images . To be consistent you'd have to eliminate galleries in '''''ALL''''' Wiki articles. Have fun. That said, why was gallery formating created in the first place if it can not, was not meant, used? I'd like to see more opinions. The sizes can be controlled Peter Horn User talk 20:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it's a good thing we aren't discussing every single article on the website, just this particular one. WP:GALLERY is quite clear in stating In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text (see MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]