Talk:Train graveyard

A fact from Train graveyard appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 April 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a train graveyard in Uyuni, Bolivia, has become a tourist attraction?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Train graveyard.

Wikipedia

Trains 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

Low

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

Nazi gold train

The editor who wrote this article apparently doesn't understand what a metaphor is, and is confusing a "train graveyard" with a train that was possibly buried in order to be hidden. These are not the same things. While it would be appropriate to call the place where a train was literally buried the train's "grave" (again, a metaphor, since trains aren't alive), that's not the same thing as a place where out of service trains are collectively put in order to rust and "die" (metaphor!)

If the author -- who exhibits extreme WP:OWNership about this article -- wishes to include the location of the supposedly buried Nazi gold train, as a "train graveyard", then I insist that they provide a citation from a reliable source to support that contention, per WP:Verifiability:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

On the providing of a citation from an RS which specifically calls the burial place of the Nazi gold train a "train graveyard"(not, for instance, a "train's grave"or other similar phrases), I will withdraw my objection. Otherwise, Wikipedia policy preclused the editor from restoring this material to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The editor cites WP:BRD in an edit summary. I respect BRD immensely, but I have to point out that BRD is an essay, while WP:V is core Wikipedia policy, and mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the personal abuse, it makes you look ignorant. The inclusion is valid - it has a verifiable link which does not need to explicitly say that "this is a train graveyard". violet/riga _^[talk] 16:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal abuse. Please follow Wikipedia policy and provide a reliable source calling the place where a Nazi gold train might be buried a "train graveyard". If you restore again without it, I will take you to AN/I immediately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that I don't understand something. Well, I guess this whole thing is "beyond your ken". violet/riga _^[talk] 16:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but about the only thing "beyond my ken" at this point is your behavior, which is increasingly disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Increasingly'? I've not really done anything recently. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really?:

{Move log} 17:51 . . Violetriga (talk | contribs) moved page Train graveyard to Train graveyards and missing trains ‎

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Nazi gold train

Almost unanimous agreement that Nazi gold train should be EXCLUDED. The fact that a (possibly mythical) buried train COULD logically be described as a 'Train graveyard', does not mean that it ever actually is - or has been. We don't write articles or include material simply because it could be so described. Non-admin close. Pincrete (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should the Nazi gold train section be included in the article? -- GreenC 18:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Oppose (as nom): Without reliable sources associating this train as a train graveyard then it shouldn't be included. It is WP:OR which is an "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". While one can imagine the term "trainyard graveyard" as an umbrella to cover any train buried, the term has never been used in the sense of a trained intentionally buried or hidden to keep it from being discovered. Wikipedia invented this sense, without sources, which is Original Research. -- GreenC 18:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There is no definition offered that states what a "train graveyard" actually is. We can agree on what a "train" is, but I cannot see how "graveyard" cannot be used as a term inclusive of buried items. The Nazi Gold train, if it exists, lies somewhere that is abandoned and would class as a "train graveyard". violet/riga _^[talk] 19:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary definition would be nice, but is not required. Simply show the term used somewhere in the context of a buried train. This is how lexicography and etymology work, how professionals create definitions. Otherwise it is just making stuff up. -- GreenC 20:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles residing at a more generic name. Train graveyard is a term that can be used to refer to places where trains are abandoned (example 1, example 2). None of these mention any confirmed literal burials. Nor does this article - it states that there is a possibility/hypothesis that a train graveyard exists which is the Nazi gold train. It doesn't say anything about whether this is likely or whether it's buried or not - it merely tells the reader that people are searching for it. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi gold train was not abandoned, they intended to return and retrieve it. Anyway, the point of this RfC is to determine if the Nazi train might be classified as a train graveyard at all, so continually asserting it is without sourcing isn't helpful. We all know you think it is, but the question is, are there independent sources that can back up the assertion? It looks like the answer is "no". -- GreenC 21:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was "abandoned while awaiting collection", as per the first sentence of this article. I chose to name this article "Train graveyard" and my definition includes mystery missing trains - perhaps I should move it to Train graveyards and missing trains. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The definition has to reflect what other people say. We report what the world says, we don't create what the world says. -- GreenC 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me what other people say about "Train graveyards" as it's a term I came up with for this whole thing. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you may think you came up with the term "Train graveyard", but, in fact, the term has been around for quite a while. Take a look at this and this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with the term for use in this project. I could've used Train cemetery. I could've called it Abandoned trains. Nobody has shown that there is any 'official' term for this and thus asserting your own definitions is worthless. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. We go by WP:COMMONNAME, and that is the common name for the kind of facility the article describes. I have no doubt that if you had chosen another, sooner or later it would have been moved to its proper name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those other names are valid and "Train cemetery" actually gets more google hits than "Train graveyard". And "Abandoned trains" even more. Was the Nazi gold train abandoned? Or just left and never picked up again? violet/riga _^[talk] 23:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not everything that's buried is in a grave or a graveyard. Flower bulbs. Time capsules. Pirate booty. If there's a train buried out there filled with Nazi gold, it is most closely akin to a pirate's buried treasure, not with the final resting place of a person or a train. In the absence of a source that explicitly refers to the location of the rumored Nazi gold train as a graveyard, there's no reason to include it in this article. David in DC (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per the article, "graveyard" does not necessarily imply that something is buried. The Nazi gold train, were it to exist, may well not be buried. If it does exist then it classifies as a "graveyard" as per the definition in this article. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A Google search shows that the term is used to describe areas where old trains are parked at the end of their useful life. This cannot be stretched to include legendary buried or hidden trains that were intentionally concealed, unless you've got a citation that calls Nazi gold trains that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an official term! Just like Concealing objects in a book is not. Or Unfinished creative work. Or Mobile phone content advertising etc. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Train graveyard" is analogous to aircraft boneyard and ship graveyard. This article should reflect those, as a place where multiple trains are stored for spare parts and/or cheap disposal by train owners. The idea that a single train, intentionally hidden, not abandoned (they intended to return and get it) makes little sense as a "graveyard". -- GreenC 21:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you can't get a definition. I call leaving something and not going back for it "abandoned" no matter the intention. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That's not what that term is used for. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have been bold and removed it. Considering that the only support for inclusion at this point is the one who added it, and since this is an addition that has been contested, it should be removed and stay removed UNTIL consensus has been achieved FOR inclusion. You don't just leave contentious things in if they're new. --Tarage (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less,'"[1] but Wikipedia does not have a budget for paying words to take on novel meanings. We work together to create an encyclopedia which communicates clearly with its many and varied readers and does not trip them up with repurposed phrasing. 92.19.30.54 (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had a longer comment full of deathless prose and devastating logic (written on the margin of the page), but it got lost, probably when Diannaa moved the page to its proper title. Anyway, the nub of it is all the things I said here and on Talk:Nazi gold train and in my AN/I report about this situation. The burial of the Nazi gold train does not make that location a "Train graveyard", so it shouldn't be in this article, but a link in the "See also" section would be fine, IMHO, and "Train graveyard" is the proper name for this article and it shouldn't be moved elsewhere without prior consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with a whale-sized WP:TROUT to Violetriga (who's been around here long enough to know better) for creating such a massive timesink. I'm a native English speaker. The Nazi gold train (if it existed, and if it's hidden) is not "buried" in a train graveyard. I haven't seen such IDHT and battleground behavior in quite a while. Drop the stick already. Miniapolis 00:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasons presented above. Lepricavark (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose inclusion in the article. The deliberate hiding of a train under dirt is not within the general scope of the term as used by the overwhelming majority of sources. i am not opposed to a link in the "see also" section which is for tangentially related materials that a reader coming to this page might have been looking for.67.220.7.244 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The text of the article, and every example presented in it except the Nazi gold train, makes it clear that the term refers to trains that have been abandoned because they are no longer intended to be used. A train that is parked in a secret place with the intention of concealing it and then later recovering it is not in a train graveyard. CodeTalker (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Note that a graveyard (as opposed to grave) implies a plurality of deceased (or abandoned trains). Alleged Nazi gold trains are a "one off per location" affair - so it is at most a grave, not a graveyard. The alleged Nazi gold trains were also intended for re-use (to move all that gold back out) - and were not abandoned purposefully due to poor state (they probably were well maintained trains at the time they were parked - if they existed). The now, alleged, abandoned train in the parking spot is not "buried" in a grave - it is perhaps akin to a single unburied corpse.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - stretching the term way outside its meaning. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are there any objections to closing the RfC? There is overwhelming WP:SNOW and a single oppose. Someone besides myself will need to do it as I am the nom. If you came to !vote, please consider instead boldly closing. If someone objects it can always be re-opened. -- GreenC 14:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Solution

The scope clearly wasn't wide enough so I've used the other title I considered. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to understand why a term I came up with is not acceptable given everybody's total inability to find an "official" definition. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it certainly shouldn't be at the plural version. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Just because you disagree with everyone else, and cannot come up with any actual evidence to prove your claims, does not give you the right to move a page to a completely ridiculous title. That's not how consensus works, and it's something that'll get you rightfully banned real quick. (The plural was my mistake - I'll have it fixed once you're done breaking things.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As ridiculous a title as the ones I mentioned above? You know, where there are unofficial terms used as article titles to describe a collection of things? violet/riga _^[talk] 22:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore aircraft boneyard and ship graveyard which are exactly the same thing. -- GreenC 22:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore them. Notice that shipwreck is in the definition of ship graveyard but you could argue that it's not valid to include that in the same way. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just not? This is ridiculous. You've been told no how many times now? Go do something else more productive than trying to shove something in where it doesn't belong. --Tarage (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not add content to Wikipedia? That's kinda the point of this project. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you? Are you adding content? Or are you copying content from other places and putting it where it doesn't belong? Because it sure feels like the latter and not the former. Surely there is an article already about this "nazi gold train" you could be improving. --Tarage (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of interest. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then go do something else. You clearly have no consensus here to do anything you are currently doing, and if you continue, I will get an administrator involved. Are we done? --Tarage (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're really scary. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'm beginning to think this is trolling. Violetriga's behavior is off the rails, so to speak :-). Miniapolis 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. On March 30th, with this edit, violet/riga, on a page they created, gave the definition as a place trains and rolling stock are left to decay. 180 degrees away from the position being taken here, near-simultaneously. David in DC (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology question

A train graveyard is known as a graveyard or cemetery, however an analogous site for aircraft is known as a boneyard or graveyard. Is this a properly documented contrast in terminology or an oversight on the part of the editors'? Orchastrattor (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are different and even multiple metaphors in common usage. -- GreenC 23:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]