Talk:New South Wales Xplorer

Capitalisation

This train is known as XPLORER by its owner/operator. There is no basis for enforcing title case on it. Just as we don't have an article on Iphones, we generally respect the names owners give their property. The Qantas and Vodafone examples provided by User:Turingway are spurious – neither company refers to itself in all upper or lower case. S/he is confusing brandmarks with corporate style. Mqst north (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Should you wish to revert this change, I would suggest you provide some sort of reference to where NSW TrainLink has altered its corporate style – at present the organisation's fleet page is pretty clear on the subject. Mqst north (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph of WP:ALLCAPS seems fairly clear that all caps should be avoided when only a stylistic function which this is, presumably to bring in line with its stablemate, the New South Wales XPT. While NSW TrainLink and Transport NSW do use both caps [1][2] and non-caps [3][4][5], other sources such as enthusiast magazines, published works and trade cites appear to universally use non-caps.[6][7] [8][9][10][11] Nonetheless will seek further clarification. Turingway (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if you've found a few isolated examples of style mistakes on the TrainLink website, I trust you're not suggesting that XPLORER isn't the correct house style. The only relevant matters in this discussion are what is the corporate style (without question, all caps), and the extent to which the guidelines you quote apply (arguable, but something about which reasonable people can disagree). Hopefully we can keep the conversation focused on the latter point. Mqst north (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Our Manual of Style says "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and then choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." The last seven words are quite clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are two separate issues here, and two separate policy pages involved. There is the question of the article title, and for that the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format and Wikipedia:Article titles#Standard English and trademarks. The second, related, issue is that of how the name shall be rendered in running prose in the article body, and for that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Trademarks, is the relevant guideline. These two don't have to match, but I think it would be good if they did.

1. On Article titles, the policy says: "Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text." and "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim);..." IN short, what the train operator calls it doesn't much matter, but if all independent reliable sources use ALL CAPS then Wikipedia might do so in its article title.
2. In the body text, the guideline says " For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules for proper names (in this case, Adidas). The mixed or non-capitalized formatting should be mentioned in the article lead, or illustrated with a graphical logo.". Here it seems that there is no real warrant for the use of ALL CAPS, no matter what the operator or other sources do.

I conclude that the article title should be in sentence case, not ALL CAPS unless a majority of independent sources use that form, and the name in the body of the article should not be in ALL CAPS in any case. The "house style" of the train operator is strictly irrelevant. Local consensus cannot over ride a policy, and should not usually override an explicit guideline. Does anyone have any views on the subject, in light of those policy/guideline pages? Do we need a formal RfC? @Turingway and Mqst north: DES ^(talk) 21:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hiya folks, found this debate through the Teahouse. A quick Google search appears to show that while "XPLORER" is also used, "Xplorer" is the most common way to capitalize the word, appearing both in general parlance and in reliable sources. Obviously a Google search is not exactly strong proof, but in this case it seems rather clear to me that "Xplorer" would be the correct, policy-compliant capitalization for both the title and the article body, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, and I don't see much to be gained by a more exhaustive analysis. Compare with Asus, for example. Cheers! --Ashenai (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree for the reasons that Cullen328, DESiegel and Ashenai gave; "Xplorer" is the correct spelling, "XPLORER" is a stylistic affectation. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The assertion that the proposed title was the WP:COMMONNAME proved to be controversial, and participants also expressed concern that the use of the term "railcar" would be unclear. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

---

New South Wales Xplorer → Xplorer railcar – Seems to be the more common name. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Australia has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Trains has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: If this move goes ahead, then New South Wales Endeavour railcar and New South Wales Hunter railcar need to be moved too. Fork99 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  And I don’t know why it was inconsistent in the first place, I moved it to New South Wales Xplorer railcar to be consistent with the other two. But yes, I do generally believe that the shorter common name works better, but I will NOT definitively support, as to let others comment. Fork99 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence provided whatsoever that it is the "more common name". The vast majority of sources I can see don't have any reference to "railcar".  — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Examples of sources I found using “railcar”: [12] [13] [14] [15] Fork99 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  More sources for Hunter “railcar”: [16] [17] (even the manufacturer uses “railcar”) [18] Fork99 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Democfest: see above for sources that use the word “railcar”, you can also find more sources this way if you just Google for “Xplorer railcar”, “Hunter railcar” or “Endeavour railcar”. Fork99 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Democfest: thoughts? Fork99 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose- Why remove "New South Wales" from the name? Most rolling stock page names have an operator or location for important context, identity and just as a universal grouping for different fleets. I'm actually also opposed to "railcar" being used as well. Aren't ALL trains technically railcars? It's a very vague term. I'd prefer if "stock" was added to the end instead actually. - Democfest (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t know if “stock” would satisfy WP:OFFICIALNAME or WP:COMMONNAME, I’ve never heard of anyone calling a train a part of a stock here in Australia. That just reminds me of “livestock”, cows, pigs, sheep. By the way, epic show going on here. Fork99 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  In what sense is it a "railcar" though? Not sure of Australian terminology, but normal that would refer to a single carriage rather than a whole trainset. In any case, that extra word isn't needed here. It doesn't appear in most RS usages, and the present name is unambiguous.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  New South Wales Tulloch suburban carriage stock, New South Wales Bradfield suburban carriage stock, New South Wales Standard suburban carriage stock all use the "stock" prefix, along with some other NSW rolling stock pages.

  Again, i really dislike the "railcar" description. What even is a railcar? A singular self propelled carriage? I can't think of a single current rolling stock class that runs as a single carriage. Democfest (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please see the comment under @Amakuru's ‘oppose’ that lists various secondary and primary sources that use the term “railcar”. I personally think unpowered railway carriages are ok to be called “stock” as per your examples above, but in this case, a train that is considered a DMU, I don’t agree with being called a “stock”. Fork99 (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  The Oxford dictionary states that a ‘railcar’ (noun, British) means “a powered railway passenger vehicle designed to operate singly or as part of a multiple unit.” There is also a Wikipedia definition at Railcar, but it doesn’t seem to agree with Oxford’s, NOR do any other dictionaries agree with this definition. Fork99 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't seen a reason why we need to add a noun on to the end of this name at all though. The common name in sources doesn't include "railcar", "stock" or anything else. And even if "railcar" does appear in some sources, it's clearly a confusing term, and is not likely to satisfy the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY criterion in addition to not being the common name. If other articles use this term, then the obvious solution is to move those to march this one, as you suggest above.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think the problem here is that if Hunter and Endeavour dropped their railcars, there’s nothing to suggest that the name is a proper noun. Whereas Xplorer is unambiguously a proper noun because it’s not actually a word in the dictionary. Fork99 (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  What about using the suffix "class"? This seems to be the most universally accepted and flexible description for anything from planes, trains to vessels. "Xplorer class" "Endeavour class" "Hunter class" all seem to work very well. Democfest (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Democfest: I don’t mind this to be honest, but probably should create a move proposal for this for all three types of trains eventually. Quick question, how come the suffix ‘set’ isn’t used, is it because it’s only for EMUs? Fork99 (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm really not sure, but "set" is quite a rare suffix for rolling stock classification. Sydney Trains seems to be one of the very few operators in the world to use "set" to classify its different trains instead of the more conventional and widely used "class", "series" or "stock" suffixes that we see elsewhere. Actually, some sources on the internet also refer to the Hunter trains as "J sets", though I'd question the authenticity, given i can't seem to find any evidence of TfNSW or NSWTrainLink using this name themselves.

  I think it's still best that we keep with the more conventional descriptors. Democfest (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, current title is clear and concise. Mumbialoy (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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.