Category talk:Rail vehicles

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Category talk:Rolling stock)
Jump to: navigation, search

Trains - here or in "rail transport"?[edit]

Gürbetaler recently moved "trains" out of this category and into "rail transport" directly. I oppose this change, as I consider it contra-intuitive to a high degree. Trains are a collection of rolling stock assembled together. Why should we move it out of where a user would expect it to be?

As usual, I won't revert (will grumble, but not revert) if most people agree that it should move to "Rail transport" directly. But I think we should discuss first whether this makes sense. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at the category tree of en:Category:Rail_transport. Trains and Rolling stock are equally on the main level. This is, what "the user" expects. Rolling stock are the single vehicles. Trains are several vehicles rolling together and transporting people or freight. A single freight car standing somewhere to be loaded or unloaded isn't a train. You could compare this with "rails" and "railway lines", one is the component needed to form the other but not every rail is necessarily in use on a railway line.--Gürbetaler (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
And, concerning what the normal user expects: The category trains is older than rolling stock. Originally rolling stock was categorized as sub-category of trains! This reflects that a user not knowing all the details about railways will search trains but never rolling stock.--Gürbetaler (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Gürbetaler, whether one category is older than the other has no bearing on whether the sorting is correct. And while it is rather tempting for both of us to speculate "what the user expects", that is rather subjective. I do not approach this from this user perspective alone anyway, but rather from a sorting perspective. Should something that is the "sum of parts" be sorted into "parts", or above the "parts"? Ingolfson (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I also note that you simply reverted me when I reinstated the status quo, instead of comitting to a discussion here first, as I have asked. The fact that you yourself changed "Trains" into "Rolling stock" in the first place some year ago shows this is not as clear cut as it may appear. I'd like some more comments from others first. Ingolfson (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ingolfson, you continue to completely redisign the categories of rail transport without having reached a consensus about the sorting principles. I will continue to revert your changes until a consensus is reached. Rail transport is a system and we sort it into its components, infrastructure and trains. Trains consist from single vehicles, called rolling stock. If we were very strict, we would classify rolling stock as a sub-category of trains. Likewise we put track and overhead line under infrastructure. But the problem is, that trains are a temporary appearance, after the train has arrived at the final destination, the vehicles my be uncoupled and stand around as "non-trains", but they still are rolling stock. This effect justifies to put trains and rolling stock on the same level. If rolling stock would always be part of a train (as catenary is always part of an infrastructure), I would vote to make rolling stock a sub-category of trains. And finally, sorting principles that no user safe one understands aren't what we need on Wikicommons.--Gürbetaler (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Gürbetaler, you changed this category, not me. Both ways - first TO "rolling stock", then back after 9 months. I certainly have the right to question your moves, just as you have done with mine. Regarding your argument that I keep changing the sorting structure: Yes, I proposed to change a number of things - via a category scheme. My other changes were primarily adding new sorting branches like "by function" (which is not the same thing as changing established patterns) or were freely discussed via move requests and so on. Also, once I see that people disagree with changes I make, I engage in discussion.
This is a WIKI. It is ALWAYS in flux, and change is ENCOURAGED. And please stop trying to hit me over the head with arguments like "sorting principles that no one understands." Argue the merits, instead of simply acting as if you spoke for everyone! We have disagreements over the complexity of the sorting system, fine. Let's keep personal feelings out of it. Ingolfson (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't want to hit anybody over the head, but I see here a discussion with two persons and that's just a dialogue. Now we know we have different meanings about a few things but there doesn't seem to be anybody around to give a third, fourth and fifth meaning. -- Concerning the changes I made, yes, I had moved trains to rolling stock because much rolling stock was categorized under trains. But after having sorted out some hundered pictures with bad categories and trying to put them in a better place I realized that it would be better to move out rolling stock pictures from trains than to categorize trains itself under rolling stock. I tried to explain why I don't (or no longer) see trains as a subcategory of rolling stock. This also depends on the discussion we had about the category tree. But I think it would be good if we had something like a rail transport portal to discuss such category issues in a certain context and with a few more persons... -- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that would make sense. But let's leave this on here for a while longer to see what third parties say (I hope we eventuallly get a few comments). Widening the dialogue should also help in ensuring we don't get into personal tussles, too. Ingolfson (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how you all doing, Moebiusuibeom-en here, new dude in town, third party maybe?; let me see if i can shed some light to this dilemma!, to begin with, I believe Trains and Rolling stock are two separate categories, ...and if rolling stock should be a sub-category of trains, maybe, let me put it this way, "my hypothesis"... lets compare Trains to, lets say Cities, so what makes up Cities: Buildings, than in the case of Trains, what makes up Trains: Rolling stock, when you look up cities anywhere you get just that, then comes the buildings, and so on, do i make sense, so to me, Rolling stock is definitely a subcategory of Trains and both should be treated separately, regards ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come so late to the party, but as a native speaker of English I was in the middle of previewing the change so Category:Trains (Edit Discussion links Page history) is NOT under Category:Rolling stock (Edit Discussion links Page history) when I saw the stale note about this controversy, which state, IMHO, is a very up-side-down relationship. Both are appropriately SISTER CATEGORIES under Rail Transport and can be linked with a cross link, and as on the en.wikipedia have an appropriate text notice that Rolling stock images do not belong in trains or Locomotives and similar notes there in those categories as well. // FrankB 23:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree that these are sister categories but then we would need a clear main category where both can be put in. Rethinking all the discussions we had, I rather tend to say that rolling stock should be the main category and that it splits into locomotives, Multiple units, railcars and motor coaches, passenger stock, goods wagons, service vehicles and entire trains or at least several vehicles of a train. However, a single picture can be categorized trains and additionally locomotive xy, if the locomotive is well visible in the train. E.g. File:CC Alsthom entre Barcelone et Tarragone en 1967.jpg shows a Class 276 locomotive at the head of a train, so both can be given as category.
Moreover I don't see the necessity to create new categories as "trains in stations". It is better to categorize railway stations more closely and take the trains separately. Otherwise you will end up having categories like "passenger trains in Barcelona-Sants railway station". This will only make sense at the point where 100 photos or so have been uploaded that need to be categorized like this. But then this category would be a subcategory of Category:Estació de Barcelona-Sants and of Category:Passenger trains in Spain. --Gürbetaler (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
User Orrling realized this on 13 Dec 2013, so we can look at this discussion as closed.-- ~~

Revisiting the issue[edit]

So sorry I'm not so good on these weighty long discussions, but once again today I find my "WRONG" spider sense saying the current categorization of trains under rolling stock (railcars) is counter intuitive to those not steeped in railway cultures, be they modelers or just railfans (train enthusiasts) or ex-RR employees.

This note is as yet unsaved on the indicated talk page: (but will be finished)  

Hi, I was just taken aback by the categorization of Category:Trains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Category:Rolling stock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and their respective roles relative to category:Rail transport. So just before moving the cats, decided to check the talk page (rolling stock). In there I found to my surprise I'd put in two-cents worth before in the years-long-debate, and that I find I fundamentally agree with your:

“Rail transport is a system and we sort it into its components, infrastructure and trains. Trains consist from single vehicles, called rolling stock. If we were very strict, we would classify rolling stock as a sub-category of trains. Likewise we put track and overhead line under infrastructure. But the problem is, that trains are a temporary appearance, after the train has arrived at the final destination, the vehicles my be uncoupled and stand around as "non-trains", but they still are rolling stock. This effect justifies to put trains and rolling stock on the same level. If rolling stock would always be part of a train (as catenary is always part of an infrastructure), I would vote to make rolling stock a sub-category of trains. And finally, sorting principles that no user safe one understands aren't what we need on Wikicommons.--Gürbetaler (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)”
statements, and feel strongly the current set-up makes little sense, and is counter-instinctive to and for the use of anyone not schooled in railway terminology.
From what I can see, there is still no consensus, so I'm tempted to just reshuffle per the below:

In particular 'Rolling stock' as a term says nothing to schoolboys unfamiliar with the term, and the 'natural name' most people would be looking for in a search would be Category:Trains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)--assuming they can find 'Rail transport' (another odd unnatural word combination--it's an academic prissy term, if you'll allow! <g>) at all.

Accordingly, I suggest begun to suggest this compromise. 
(That was then, this blockquote is now and here, and my solution changed as below!)

BOTH should be subcats of Category:Rail transport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) with a clear box template linking to the sister category. This has the advantage of revealing Rail transport should users search either of the other terms (Hobbyists and rail enthusiasts will have learned the term, but others wouldn't know it as a term at all!) When I was very active here (before 2010) and helping recat the whole map schema, 'that' was our solution for alerting folks that a distinction was being made between old and new maps-and there definition. I can write a box up easy peasy, and since just two sisters are involved, we need not make it a template at all.


My reasonings[edit]

The term "Rolling stock" (like 'consist' or consists) is just too vague without a cultural reference frame to complete understanding, thereby conveying the understanding of what is meant. Trains or Traincars, at least in English, are self-defining regardless of context. Accordingly, I've decided after looking at this hard the past hour to apply English sense and make both:

a sub-category of Category:Trains and traincars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) itself being the mother to trains topics under Rail transport conveying both the understanding one needs continue down the hierarchy for both Trains and Rolling stock.

  • This also serves to allow a Traincar types (a category name I installed in three leaf categories in the summer of 2013 to be unorphaned, for the sense of that name is what the trains-cultured mean by rolling stock. Call me ignorant if you will but at age 60 I've always been a railfan since a boy, and got heavily into model railroading to the tune of several thousands of dollars ten years back, and even as recently as last year, 'rolling stock' was not a term which meant much -- and one that would've been hard to recall had I need--until this past year since search filters in the simulator b:Trainz use the term as a classifier.
  • (This may also have the virtue of allowing Train maintenance cats to be better interlinked--at the moment yet another 'wrongness' impression that needs a bit more exploration.)

In any event, I'm boldly recatting as noted, and will make Traincar types at least a soft-redirect category for those who speak natural English instead of 'railroadish'. // FrankB 17:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Answers and Propositions[edit]

I can follow the reasoning that "rolling stock" (German: Rollmaterial, French: matériel roulant, etc.) is a very railroadish term. Having gone through all these cat and recat discussions I end up with the following:

  • Speaking railroadish a train is a consist of rolling stock, put together in a way to be moved. In that sense train would be a subcategory of rolling stock.
  • Speaking newspaper English, any rolling stock is a train. Here, it is on the same level, for a journalist they might even be synonymous.
  • Another well known and probably often searched for word is locomotive. In newspaper English this is used for any motive power.
  • Unfortunately British English and American English developed very different words for pulled rolling stock.
  • We should find an easy access to railway vehicles vai the categories. But traincar for sure isn't a word to be used.

I'll continue soon.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Following an approach to put railroadish to a second level, we should make trains the main category with rolling stock redirecting to trains. Category tree would then be:

  • Trains (= Rolling stock)
  • - Train consists = Train sets
  • - Locomotives
  • -- Steam locmotives
  • -- Electric locomotives
  • -- Diesel locomotives
  • - Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars
  • -- Steam ...
  • -- Electric ... etc.
  • - trams
  • - railway coaches = railway carriages = passenger railroad cars
  • - railway wagons = freight railroad cars
  • - rail service vehicles

Apart from that we should avoid that the single vehicle is at category level 32 where nobody finds it. There have been recent movements to make categories not only for each single subtype of vehicles but also dividing this into subcategories for each livery ever carried with an intermediate category Class 999 of Xrailroad by livery. Can we keep category trees flat? -- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I confess I don't know what directions commons policy has taken on depth and such since I was last regularly active here before mid-2009 iirc, but it was encouraged that as soon as one had 3-5 of something to go ahead and make a sub-category. I'll have to gestate more on some of your fine points (It's too late at my 2am to think clearly), but if you make Trains or Train the parent, it looks like I can live with rolling stock however you care to place it. Their relative juxtaposition is what set me off. Not sure what is so objectionable about traincar, does it translate badly? (I think that's a yes from Google Translate!) Tramcar is certainly in common usage in Commonwealth English.
BTW, by definition a flat tree is damaged goods! Toothpicks! <g> I concur with some kind of reasonable limits to depth, but think we are agreeing and thinking the same: traincars by livery (heraldry) is fine but I draw the line at splitting a type by road liveries--let the browsing persons do the grouping themselves by providing the 'livery group' and the 'type group'. Speaking of types, regarding differing RR cultural names of such as flatcars and wagons--highly recommend {{category redirect}} and using some of it's pass parameters to customize a logical normal name for those things best left in railroadish, as below, a work saver since the cat-redir is a soft redirect with explanations, the readers don't get annoyed or lost... just keep moving on as they'd reasoned and expected with a small disappointment at having to click again!
OTOH, a parent category with AND in the title seems to be a good way to minimize recats and confusions--it gives you that second tier things can tie into as sisters, so work that into your thinking. Consists to my mind are a neglected term, but again, outside RR circles, the laypersons wouldn't know them. The fact is we're dealing with a topic that has multiple cultural roots in as many continental locii starting points with a history going back now nearly 190 years from commercial exploitation across the globe. There are bound to be differences in linguistics, usages of the same word, and odd constructs to one of another background. In that, I suspect your best bet is to suck it up and live with 'traincars' as the most recognizable self-defining term. Railcars would be an acceptable alternative, but in American English wouldn't quite convey the same immediate and intuitive meaning as traincar--railcar makes one think a moment--but I can suck THAT up. LOL!
I'll check back--hopefully by nine hours or so from now--to see if you want to act boldly and what you decided, or have more to discuss. At that point I'll be around for about seven hours and if you like, could skype. Best regards, // FrankB 06:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Uh-Oh! Urgent enough to put off going to bed! LOL Definitely avoid' Train sets' in North American English that would convey department store grade 'toy' model railroad train sets... See This!--and serious model railroaders world wide would condemn you for advocating rolling stock with cheap plastic wheels and cheaper unreliable and unrealistic couplers! // FrankB 06:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I am very late to the party (I joined end-2013), but being 1/3 of the still active discussion participants my opinion probably matters anyway: Why not just keep everything as-is, and make trains a meta category for categories of named passenger and freight trains? In my opinion, trains should be a direct subcategory of rail transport (as it also contains media not directly related to rolling stock), with a {{for2}} linking to rolling stock. I don't think this is something that should be decided by two users alone, even more with your set "deadlines".    FDMS  4    15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Think we've established that Trains should be the meta, as you put it. The problem now is that is Rolling Stock... upside down. I met my revisit commitment, and will unexpectedly be going out for the afternoon. I'll see what Gürbetaler comes up with as an alternative proposal in 5-6 hours! FrankB 16:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I just primed the Village Pump with a notice so we can get more heads into the discussion...here // FrankB 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree in making "Trains" a super category for rolling stock. This is not only inaccurate in railroading terms (which in itself is a reason not to change it), but in my experience it is also not used by non-railroad people as a synonym for rolling stock. For example, people I known would usually not can a single railroad car or even a single locomotive a "train". It's usually only used for rolling stock with any kind of motive power attached, like locos + cars, railcars or multiple units. --Sebari (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


This is a complex subject. In Britain, rolling stock covers three broad categories - locomotive hauled vehicles (LHVs), EMUs (Electric multiple unit and DMUs (Diesel multiple unit). It doesn't cover locomotives (in the sense of power cars used for propulsion which do not carry passengers). LHVs cover passenger coaches and driving van trailers which operate in conjunction with power cars. Although the current classification doesn't reflect this distinction, I think it's better than making "Rolling stock" part of "Trains" which has a more specific definition excluding coaches and driving units as Srittau says. I would therefore have a preference for leaving things as they are. On another point, I've always disliked the use of "motor coaches" in the "Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars" category. Motor coaches in British English signify road vehicles. Perhaps what is meant here is "railbuses" or (for older units) "railmotors"? Lamberhurst (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you please contribute to this: Category talk:Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars-- Gürbetaler (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason that this is complex is because the topics cover multiple constituencies—Multiple cultures (even those 'divided by a common language', English— so the real problem is linguistical as is evidenced by the fact I, a longtime railfan, had to edit the above post with links as to what the unfamiliar abbreviations above meant! (I've never 'been into' passenger trafficking, a difficult industry to keep solvent here in the expanses of North America!) To me, the vehicles are parts, that start with the great and expensive civil engineering feats of laying out a graded rail system—the place where the greater capital is needed and the greater ongoing expense is required year to year. Europe has much denser populations and grew around transit system services, whereas here we built the interstate highways and improved Prime Movers (Trucks) so nearly killed off all local rail roads. It's where we need to start--culturally different with similar or same tasks.

A different cap[edit]

Hence, can we re-set our thinking caps as discussing multiple languages, for truly we are. Rail systems or Rail roads and vehicles might be a best-fit root meta-category. How does this strike you guys as a starting point, Sebari your comments in particular please! And to FDMS--in Wiki cultures, everyone's opinion matters-I go away from this sisterproject or that for months or years at a time--I'm currently mainly focused in Wikibooks Trainz, and can still advocate improvements and edit here on occasion--pitch in as much as your time allows! // FrankB 14:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems that neither "trains" nor "rolling stock" really seems to be good or correct term. I like the word "vehicles" in your proposal. Maybe we could use something simple like "Rail vehicles", instead of "Rolling stock"? Looking at the category tree, such a category already exists at super cat for "Rolling stock", but apart from that it is not used for much. --Sebari (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to the rolling stock/trains question[edit]

The question how to correctly name categories for railway vehicles seems to be complicated enough so please don't change the whole world. Rail transport belongs to the category tree transport and I think we shouldn't change this! Back to the vehicles, the main problem remains the very different use of words by native English speakers and the definitions that go round the world to help non-native speakers to use the correct term. In railroadish this seems to be nearly impossible. So we can't do a quick change.

When I used the word "train consist", native British English speakers told me to better use "train sets". Now the next one arrives and explains that sets are toys and nothing else. Now what? And then, motor coach wouldn't be used in British English. Maybe they don't exist any more in the British Isles because everything is EMU now. But I don't know from where I could have learned this word if not from British literature and British speakers. In British books near to reach I read about train sets and motor cars. Some English railfan told me the other day, driving trailer would be an unusual term. Others said the opposite and the DVT clearly shows that it is used. But then somebody started to name the categories driving railway carriages.

But then, when I look out for traincars I don't find anything. Looks like an artificial word. Not the thing we need here.

We had a discussion about railway stations. Most categories read Train stations. For me, this sounds odd, it should be railway stations, really. But it says that train is the word.

FAB says he can support Railways as conveying the right sense to non-cognizati!

If a non railroadish speaking person had to categorize a photo with a rail vehicle. What do they look for? Railway or train, clearly. So, think about it. And tell me, where to find the really correct words??? -- Gürbetaler (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

FAB says: I was going to suggest 'Railways' as a possible compromise, but is more British than North American, though there historically have been some corporations embracing the term.

Forgot the remark that rolling stock wouldn't include locomotives in British English. Really? Well, the Platform 5 books carry the title Locomotives and coaching stock. I can't find the word rolling stock anywhwere.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

FAB says: Not in any Train culture I know of--rolling stock (refs) is widely understood to include locos, and there are engine/prime mover categories enough that it's splitting hairs to let the inclusion or exclusion get in the way of forming a good upper hierarchy. I think we need keep the principle foremost that we want it to make sense to most anyone, regardless of topic prior involvement and cultural familiarity.

 

Gürbetaler, You Have my SINCEREST EMPATHY... even sympathy -- which is why I elected to publicize this discussion on the VP for others to weigh in with their two cents.
  • re: Traincarsmany hits or alternatively train cars is possibly a sub-cultural term... so may be a 'term of art' but it at least is in wide-scale use amongst the million or so of us that digitally model trains in w:Trainz or a competing product. The Brits are fond of Tram-car, or were, so it's in the same vein, though I'll give you my normal dictionary reference 'craps out', but Merriam-Webster lists a form of 'Passenger-train car'. The key thing to realize is we're dealing with multiple cultures which have their own traditions and history that go back nearly the whole industrial period--and depending upon the inclinations of their employees and the influences of imported 'Experts' (mainly British or American) and even stubbornness, each demographic evolved it's own way of doing things... Each demographic and indeed railway had their own terms of art and ways of referring to the all the stuff of railways. This debate over nomenclature is not new... there has probably never been another industry that went through more mergers and reconfigurations as railroad companies, and each merger had this question of clashing cultures to contend with. So relax. We can hardly do worse than Trains under Rolling stock!
There are three differing conventions as a result in Australia (Queensland Rail [East], SAR [South Australian Rail] and one hybrid!), down to the signalling conventions, rules, terminology and equipment they favor and buy! I understand central Europe has similar issues--cross a border and the signals are on the right not the left, the light codes interpretation changes, and so forth. (Driving in Trainz makes one aware of this pretty quickly since you can get RR's based just about anywhere! Things can be confusing if you make the wrong assumptions.) SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY TOTALLY CORRECT ANSWER--we have to strive for the simplest ones terminologically which makes sense to most everyone, albeit grudging sense! (Accompanied by loud and soft grumbles, no doubt! LOL)
I took a few moments after closing earlier today to look back through the Category:Rail transport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) category, and my last two suggested (redlinks) terms above both would allow migration of several other subcats into their meta-plateau.
I just went back up to the beginning for a re-read, and note that the original move back to the status-quo-ante opposed by the very-absent-lately user: Ingolfson (who apparently passed the torch to Sebari-who both make an objection which makes little sense to me, but to reveal it seems the sense of the word train itself differs between the strict constructionists and the champions of the vernacular!) and your arguments there make a lot of sense, with the caveat that en:Category:Trains and en:Rolling stock both reside in Rail transport which I can accept readily but note the Wikipedia's Rolling stock includes a LOOP (which are discouraged for tools here, aren't they? This tiny one may be permissible, I forget the nuances.), it's currently a sub-cat of :w:Rail transport and of w:Trains. Ahem... Bottom line, I can live with that, with or without the loop as Rail transport is sensible enough a common term. Creating something like a Railways and vehicles cat would allow them to be true sisters, and allow a number of other sub-cats in Rail Transport to occupy the smaller easier to parse and understand structure, and still remain a meta-category.


OTOH, I like the idea of matching the structure of the en.wikipedia--there are loads more voices involved in such decisions therein, so any consensus of theirs is a very good guideline I'm very loath to ignore—and moreover, all the non-English Wikis take their influence from that senior sister and it's structuring, through interwiki's if by no other thinking. The more I think about it, that is the way forward-or perhaps back. Consistency has a value of it's own, and if someone has trouble finding materials here, one of their first alternatives would be to search topics there and use those categories to find their way into the proper place here. I've done it myself dozens of times, so I urge that as being the best simple 'best solution', and the only thing needing changed is the parenting of Rolling stock and Trains (to match, loop and all!) Can I get some ayes and nays?


On a few other loose ends. Railcars and traincars are generally synonyms in speech and generally exclude locomotives, unless they are light rail vehicles, the British EMU's and DMU's (Thankyou user: Lamberhurst!) In railroad companies, cars would always be accounted to consists in railroadish, so being an accounting term, it is understandable it is less understood in the general population. Images of multiple cars without prime movers thus could reside in a consists category 'railcar vehicle groups' (aka consists), individual car images in Railcars which could be sub-typed, including EMU and DMU (and my favorite railterm, doodlebugs (Gasoline powered DMU analogs)--that is the same sense as 'motor coach' I believe (and agree you probably learned and heard that from reading Commonwealth English). So I'm thinking we're at loggerheads-we've two dissenters who both seem to feel strongly that rolling stock is not a component of a train, whereas in my experience, in the vernacular (or the older term 'vulgar'!) the word 'train' is often used to refer to single cars and locos as well as consists and moving trains of consists of cars. Then again I consider:
“Speaking railroadish a train is a consist of rolling stock, put together in a way to be moved. In that sense train would be a subcategory of rolling stock. - Gürbetaler”
I confess is a logic I cannot follow. Whether moving or not, it ignores the Big assemblies to small parts heirarchy: Railways, trains, train, consists, subconsists, rolling stock. Nuff said for now. Gürbetaler-I'm feeling your pain, but if we can't park both Rolling stock and Trains in Rail transport, or Rolling stock in Trains with or without both in Rail transport, I've no idea what we can all agree on without inventing a new level for both, and then there is the surprising undercurrent of opposition to rolling stock-a definite industry term with a long history, albeit not well known outside the industry or its fans! (Does anyone still run a bot to clean up {{category redirect}}s as they did back in 2009? If so, using train vehicle as a pseudonym for rolling stock as a soft redirect to rolling stock would be fairly harmless.) Have a great weekend all! // (FAB) FrankB 05:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Moving trains back to rail transport would seem like the ideal solution here. I must confess that I don't follow the reasoning given by Ingolfson at the top of the page which appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the concept of rolling stock. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the logic of categories for Category:Bamboo furniture you will find it is a subcategory of Category:Bamboo in use and this of Category:Bamboo. Now this logic (however, you can never compare railways with wood, nevertheless I'll do it) leads us to train being a subcategory of rolling stock in use and this is a subcategory of rolling stock. Of course you can turn it around with rolling stock being a subcategory of components of trains, being a subcategory of trains. Which way round?
I'm somewhat confused about your use of traincar and railcar. Railcar in the European sense is always a propelled vehicle. Traincar is like the German "Zugwagen", a word used by journalists but never by railway staff or railway enthusiasts. And not by authors of railway books. Then it's "Eisenbahnwagen" which corresponds to railway vehicle or railway car or railway coach/railway carriage/railway wagon. The difference may be that the railway vehicle can be a rail car but the motor vehicle is a railcar? But not a traincar, I think.
FAB says: I think the confusion is in the laid back way English allows things to be defined meaning the same object. Railroad, railways way=road is another way of saying the same thing, and car is common to rail car and train car (or traincar). Don't loose any sleep over it. Just chalk it up to North Americans, being emigrees learning to get along together got a bit tolerant of alternative usages... and the theme (or tradition!??) continues... <BSEG> // FrankB
And see, what en:Category:Rolling stock gives as introduction: Rolling stock comprises all the vehicles that move on a railway. It usually includes both powered and unpowered vehicles, for example locomotives, railroad cars, coaches, and wagons. And here, trains is a subcategory of rolling stock. Now, this way round?
What I miss between rolling stock and locomotives is the global term for all motorized rail vehicles. Having bought many editions of Ian Allen's British Rail Motive Power I always thought that motive power would be the correct translation for "Triebfahrzeug". I can't find this term in Wikipedia. Is this only Ian Allan speak? Finally even more questions than answers.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That definition is wrong and should be deleted. See the more accurate (and referenced) description on Wikipedia: w:Glossary_of_rail_transport_terms#R. I don't agree that a train is "rolling stock". For me, trains are locomotives. Triebfahrzeug is indeed "motive power". The concept is misunderstood on Wikipedia, see w:Motive power (disambiguation). Lamberhurst (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid your statement is too short to be clear. Which definition is wrong? You point to the Glossary, but there I find rolling stock in two definitions, one British and one American. Finally, I don't understand what you wanted to say with "trains are locomotives". I don't think you wanted to say what you wrote?-- Gürbetaler (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just realized that somebody has put rolling stock as subcategory of Category:Rail vehicles. Now this doesn't make sense at all. They are on the same level. But it is true, if I write an article about a railway company I would rather put a title "Fahrzeuge" = "Vehicles" and not "Rollmaterial" = "rolling stock". Rail vehicles would be easier to understand for not railroadish speaking persons and it would resolve the difference in definition between American and British English. Undoubtedly a locomotive is a vehicle, isn't it? I propose:
  • Rail transport has subcategory Rail vehicles and this one has subcategories locomotives, wagons etc.
  • Trains is classified like in en:Wikipedia as a subcategory of Rail transport and Rail vehicles.
  • Rolling stock redirects to rail vehicles

Could we go like this?-- Gürbetaler (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your first and last point. I would prefer "Trains" not to be sub-categorized under "Rail transport", because to me trains are also "Rail vehicles", but I can see the point of distinguishing between "single vehicles" (i.e. cat Rail vehicles) and "vehicle consists" (i.e. cat Trains), so I would not oppose this. I think we should discuss the railcars etc. stuff separately. --Sebari (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
FAB says: 1) I suspect from the points put forth that the problem is cultural. Anything railroadish in North America is likely to be seen as Train related. Hence Train is an umbrella term, not one concisely and exactly definable so that it covers easily all uses of the word in N.A. linguistical usages.
2) re: 'I would prefer "Trains" not to be sub-categorized under "Rail transport", because to me trains are also "Rail vehicles"' ... I think given the foregoing point, if you realize Trains is more an substitute for Rail Transport on this side of the Atlantic, the conflict is explainable. In Usage in the vernacular, everything with rails will likely invoke the word train in this culture.
3) I had no problems with the above summation until "* Rolling stock redirects to rail vehicles"--which is fine, but why not just make the redirect the other way. Rolling stock is highly used. Rail vehicles is clear enough too. // FrankB
FAB Adding this section title below since it a concrete & detailed proposal. //FrankB 18:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Concrete Proposal[edit]

I know I'm late to the party, but as a British railfan I'd organise the hierarchy as follows, noting that categories don't have to be strictly hierarchical and can have more than one parent, even at different levels.

  • Rail Transport
    • Rail transport infrastructure
      • Various subcats (rails, sleepers, cuttings, OHLE, etc, etc, etc)
    • Trains (i.e. whole trains, or parts of whole trains) (also a subcat of railways)
      • Passenger
      • Freight
      • etc
      • by country
      • by etc
    • rolling stock = rail vehciles (i.e. the focus is on individual and groups of vehicles rather than a whole train or part of a train). (this is also a subcat of "trains")
      • Locomotives
        • by motive power
        • by etc
      • Multiple units
        • by motive power
        • by etc
      • Coaches = carriages = passenger cars
        • by etc
      • Wagons = goods cars = freight cars (incl tanker wagons, ballast wagons, etc)
        • by etc
      • On-track plant = self-propelled maintenance of way vehicles
        • by etc
      • hauled maintenance of way vehicles that are not wagons/cars, e.g. rail cranes
        • by etc
      • human powered things that run on rails (e.g. track trolleys)
        • by etc
    • Road-rail vehicles (also a subcat of road vehicles or one of its subcats)
      • by etc
      • RRV trailers
    • Trams (also a subcat of tramways)
      • by etc
    • Railways (for media related to companies, systems, maps, etc)
      • various subcats
    • Tramways (modern meaning) (ditto)
      • various subcats
    • Plateways / tramways (historic meaning)
      • by etc

Thryduulf (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for the time you put into that Thryduulf! Yes, I can live with that or the above change quite easily. My sole niggle here is trains in/under rolling stock, and both the above fix this issue. // FrankB 18:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure we have resolved any of the issues mentioned, except trains should appear in rail transport. This is the status quo ante. For the rest, and for the new proposals:
  • It was said that rolling stock isn't a clear term in each variety of English. British speakers would prefer motive power and rolling stock. This is why I proposed to change to Rail vehicles. This is the more common, better understandable term.
  • As train seems to be a synonym to anything moving on rails, for some, there should be a clear link to the single vehicles. Having them on the same level doesn't help here.
  • Trams are considered to be rail vehicles in many countries.
  • Putting railways and tramways for a very specific use will bring back the discussions that already were and which led to the introduction of rail transport companies and railway lines
  • Category:Rail service vehicles is a better home to the wide variety between On-track plants, hauled maintenance of way vehicles, measuring vehicles, hauled construction vehicles with auxiliary propulsion, service train diesels, trolleys etc.
After all, I propose not to change the existing categories within rolling stock etc. But we should get clear, if rail vehicles can be the category. The important advantage is that the word rail is there so there is no doubt, where it belongs to.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The one minor problem (I saw after my last post) with rail vehicles is mine cars, are rail vehicles, so it cannot be considered equivalent to rolling stock which in my understanding is a rail companies term, so would be a sub-cat. Creating such a category which is a legitimate parent for others in Rail transport, is fine so long as such splits are accounted for. I leave it in your concerned hands to resolve as makes best sense to you so long as we keep the sense and commonsense of the lay party in mind. // FrankB 21:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
As an accountant I'll make up the balance...
* rail vehicles are rolling stock & mine cars in US English
* rail vehicles are motive power & rolling stock & mine cars in UK English
Now, we should get rid of that term roling stock, as we want to have the rail vehicles together.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Well done Gürbetaler for sorting this out. Now how about moving Category:Driving cabs of rolling stock back to where you had it before a now-banned user moved it? Lamberhurst (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, bye-golly, well done... and that one's been dealt with too I see! // FrankB 21:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)