Talk:South African Class 6E1, Series 1

This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Trains: Locomotives Low‑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

Low

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Separate articles for each series

Is there really any need to have separate articles for each series of 6E1 class locomotive? Most of the text in each article is the same, with only a paragraph or so difference to describe specific details of the series. Could all the articles be merged, with a section for each series? Zoqaeski (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One could merge them, but it will probably be a rather clunky article with an equally clunky infobox, what with all the differences over the years, rebuilds and survivors. Besides, the feedback that I've received from local railfans and locospotters who make up the bulk of the users of these articles show that they prefer them separate as is. My personal preference, for what that's worth, is also to keep them as is since it makes updating simpler. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]