Talk:Jeep train

Jeepomotive?

This was a vanishingly rare term for these things, and at least one usage shown appears to a newsman's invention. "Rail Jeep" was far more common. Anmccaff (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

1940 was Maj. Wiley's year of graduation.....

...not the year he worked with a rail-jeep locomotive. There were only a handful of jeeps in the Philipines at the begining of the war, and none were used for rail. Anmccaff (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Swivels or turn tables

As shown here, it might be worth writing about how the Jeeps were turned around by swivels or improvised turn tables. --80.187.98.87 (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That was the usual way of dealing with this type of vehicle, going back to small agricultural/construction narrowgauges. Anmccaff (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

Having been invited to assist with translation from the German article, I'm trying to understand why the changes and additions have been reverted without discussion.

Who has asked you for this assistance? If you believe it is me, I have not, and apologize for any misunderstanding; I have asked you for assistance with correcting the German version, particularly with the nomenclature, which is based on a little-used nonce word. The word "Jeepomotive" is mostly a creation of a single editor at Wiki; before that is had only been used a handful of times, as a pun. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In particular the following should be restored unless there are convincing arguments to the contrary.

• The referenced information added to the lede and the Australia section.
• The alternative names or types of vehicle in the lede, elements of which may be unintelligible to readers outside the USA
• The country order which should be alphabetical as is the normal Wikipedia convention.
• The original English version, in line with WP:ENGVAR, except for the USA section which may of course be Americanized. -- Bermicourt (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• The referenced information is inaccurate, and directly contradicted by better sources. Jeep trains were not "invented" in Borneo in 1945; many rail jeeps used purpose-built wheels, not improvised ones; many were operated with free steering, and axles need not be cut down if a correctly designed wheel is available. This was not just a wartime innovation, but one both planned for, and with long precedent. What do you feel is missing from the Australian section?
• Specifically? I can see adding "shunter" and "draisine" parenthetically in the lead, and maybe linking draisine in the section on France .Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• So, the article on the Second World War should be changed, so that rather than reflect mere chronology and importance, Albania's alphabetical pride of place is retained? Every rule has its exceptions, and, frankly I'm not sure this one even applies here at all. Some things are better handled chronologically. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• The original version was not in British English, but calqued from German. Anmccaff (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we're happy with adding the other descriptions to the lede. Let's deal with the other points:

• The lede stated: "These were developed during the Second World War using the ubiquitous US Jeep because roads in the war zones were impassible in many places and there were often not enough railway locomotives." Is your issue with the word "developed"? If so, let's substitute "used" and perhaps add "by the Allied armies". However, since the Jeep did not appear until 1941 "developed" seems fine. If you have evidence to the contrary, please let's have the details.
• The Australia section stated: "In Borneo in 1945, Australian soldiers converted jeeps to run on rails in order to compensate for the lack of locomotives on the narrow gauge railway lines on the island.[6] Depending on the track gauge, the conversion could be very simple: the vehicle wheels were changed for the normal steel wheels with flanged rims used by the railways, a suitable coupling was added at the rear of the chassis and the steering was locked.[7] For narrow gauge tracks the axles had to be modified." This does not imply they were "invented" in Borneo, so I see no reason not to reinstate this.
• Since the country sections are mostly undated, there is no logic in using chronology. Is your real motivation that you believe USA should take precedence because the Jeep was invented by America? If so, say so.
• Whatever you think of the quality of the original article and whether or not it was a translation, WP:ENGVAR means that it should not be changed, especially into a US regional variation, except for the US section.

And BTW, there are lots of other versions of English out there, apart from British. Ideally we want to find words that are universal or at least recognised as international. Where railway/railroad terminology is concerned, the International Union of Railways is the leading authority. Bermicourt (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are one of them Hanoverian Interlopers or the Pope, or such, please do not say 'we' when you mean 'I'. And let's not glide over questions by taking the answer as a given, immediately piling on a new set of assumptions; that's rather close to to preterition.

• They were developed well before the war, and before the jeep, and, in the jeeps case, for reasons other than stated. Most of the development was for inspection cars and switchers -including rubber-wheeled switchers for port operations. For many of these applications, a jeep was little different from the many other light vehicles adapted for this, and any railroad man knew this. The largest use of jeep trains was almost certainly in Burma, and the parallel roads there were no worse than the rail itself. The Japanese had dropped a good many of the bridges on both, and so forth. The main reason for using jeeps as opposed to heavier vehicles was less availability, and more state of the track.
• Aside from it being wrong, and all? The axles did not "have to be modified," a fact which is available within the article itself. Neither the switchers in use at Eagle Farm Aerodrome nor those used in Burma were modified beyond wheels and sometimes locking the wheel in neutral or at a predictable slight angle.
• Not in the headers, but certainly in the narrative.
• Certainly centering an article, or parts of an article on the language used in good sources makes sense, and that often lines up with the originators. No, it does not. It says it should not be changed casually and simply to make a change, and goes on to list many obvious exceptions. More importantly, what makes you believe that the article was written in any particular thing beyond Machine TransLatin? Yet that was the example you gave, no? British, subspecies "Commonwealth".Anmccaff (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

...on European usage, yep. Anmccaff (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reorganised your comments so they are not interwoven with mine which can be confusing for editors following a discussion - I hope I've formatted it logically. See Help:Using talk pages which says "To respond to a discussion already in progress, click the "edit" link at the section heading and add your comment below the last entry in the discussion." I think this is the same point that PeterEastern made to you here.

Since some of your comments are bordering on personal attack and micky-taking, I'd also draw your attention to WP:CIVIL especially where it encourages editors to avoid name-calling and avoid condescension. It doesn't advance the article and encourage cooperation. I'm particularly disappointed since you asked me to help you and I have tried, in good faith, to do that.

Turning to your responses briefly:

• I'm not repeating myself. If you have evidence to the contrary, please insert it, backed by your sources.
• Ditto
• Only 2 of the four sections have dates anywhere, so chronology doesn't work. Nor is it normal to organise countries by date. If the sections were historical periods, it would make sense.
• I'm not sure what you're saying here, except that it gives an impression you want to defend the Americanization of the article despite WP:ENGVAR. And I'm not sure what our Commonwealth friends would think of your calling their English variants a "sub-species" of British English. All versions of English derive from (an older version of) British English, but I don't think that's relevant here - no English version is preferred in Wikipedia but an article stays in the original version unless it is entirely regionally focussed.

So where does that leave us. Well I'm not willing to waste any more time translating stuff here as it's not been graciously received. But I do expect WP:ENGVAR to be respected as that's a wider Wiki convention, and I want to see all regional descriptors appropriately mentioned in the lede.

Finally, I would encourage you to treat other editors who are trying to work with you with respect and civility, to support their efforts where you can and to strive for consensus. If you continue to ride roughshod over them, you will find them unwilling to cooperate; worse still, you risk a ban. This is meant to be a team effort. Hope that helps. Bermicourt (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not repeating myself. If you have evidence to the contrary, please insert it, backed by your sources.

This is that our equine friends would call the thing that is not. You start with

Having been invited to assist with translation from the German article, 

...and despite being told that you are mistaken:

Who has asked you for this assistance?  If you believe it is me, I have not, and apologize for any misunderstanding; I have asked you for assistance with correcting the German version

You reiteriate it again

I'm particularly surprised since you asked me to help you and I have tried, in good faith, to do that.

..and then crank the bathos up a notch by editing to:

I'm particularly disappointed since you asked me to help you and I have tried, in good faith, to do that.

...and follow through with

Well I'm not willing to waste any more time translating stuff here as it's not been graciously received.

You repeat yourself a good deal, it seems.

No one asked you to translate from German to English; why should anyone be grateful for it? In fact, if you had looked through the article a bit, you'd see that the original editor appears to have composed it in English, not German, and judging by vocabulary, North American English crossed with computer translation. See [[1]] The references are all in English, and mostly North American. What skills do you think are required moving from this German version to the English?

Returning to the removed matter, though, we see:

The lede stated: "These were developed during the Second World War using the ubiquitous US Jeep because roads in the war zones were impassible in many places and there were often not enough railway locomotives."  Is your issue with the word "developed"? If so, let's substitute "used" and perhaps add "by the Allied armies". However, since the Jeep did not appear until 1941 "developed" seems fine. If you have evidence to the contrary, please let's have the details.

My issues with this (as stated above-

The referenced information is inaccurate, and directly contradicted by better sources.

...is that it is comprehensively wrong. Rail jeeps were developed for uses in areas where the roads were not impassibly bad; directly after D-Day there were steel wheel jeeps investigating the state of the tracks in France, as referenced in the article. In Burma, the "jeep trains" allowed movement of men and goods along track which was marginal or unworkable for full-weight locomotives, and did so with a passable road running roughly parallel it. Also, in Burma, there wasn't, over much of the jeep trains early history, a particular locomotive shortage. It was, however, much easier to fix the track and bridges well enough to handle light goods wagons, as opposed to heavy locomotives. It's also worth noting that repair and construction of telephone and telegraph systems, and of oil pipelines, had their own unit-converted rail jeeps, and in those cases, the tracks were often going in areas where no roads existed at all.

• Ditto

The early versions make no mention of words like "shunter," and, as I've mentioned, do not seem to be written in any particular English, and show four pictures of "military use," all American units in Burma. One out of the three references is Canadian, describing US use in the Philippines. As befitting its origins and principal users, there's a strong NorthAmmuricanistani tilt, yes. No reason there shouldn't be.

*Only 2 of the four sections have dates anywhere, so chronology doesn't work. Nor is it normal to organise countries by date. If the sections were historical periods, it would make sense. 

A description of US and British use in Burma or France has a very, very, strongly implied value of "1944 onward" to most people familiar with the subject.

*I'm not sure what you're saying here, except that it gives an impression you want to defend the Americanization of the article despite WP:ENGVAR. And I'm not sure what our Commonwealth friends would think of your calling their English variants a "sub-species" of British English. All versions of English derive from (an older version of) British English, but I don't think that's relevant here - no English version is preferred in Wikipedia but an article stays in the original version unless it is entirely regionally focussed.

Please support your charge of "Americanization" with a few examples, after you've explained why something made in the US, and widely used by the US, shouldn't have a legitimate regional flavo(u)r.

Example text::::So where does that leave us. Well I'm not willing to waste any more time translating stuff here as it's not been graciously received. But I do expect WP:ENGVAR to be respected as that's a wider Wiki convention, and I want to see all regional descriptors appropriately mentioned in the lede.

Finally, I would encourage you to treat other editors who are trying to work with you with respect and civility, to support their efforts where you can and to strive for consensus. If you continue to ride roughshod over them, you will find them unwilling to cooperate; worse still, you risk a ban. This is meant to be a team effort. Hope that helps.

So, which notice board do you wish to take this to? I've grown a little tired of people more willing to threaten ANI than to bother doing the work of research, and disguising it as best they can with smarmy "hope that helps"'s and nursery-talk plurals. If you want respect and civility, you should show some. Anmccaff (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You moved this...

...why, exactly? Anmccaff (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)