This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Fireman Sam#Vehicles|''Fireman Sam'' - vehicles]] The anchor (#Vehicles) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Multi-form/Variable-form vehicles?
The one I can think of currently is the
Magic School Bus (don't blame me, I'm a parent). It's notable enough, but I'm sure it doesn't fit into any of the current categories. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Seems like it's a flying bus. We could put it under the amphibious vehicles section (not quite fitting I guess) or we open a new section called "Other" and put it there. --
Scriberius (
talk)
What is the poit of this page
Like the list of ficitional spaceships this page is pointless unless there is some good reason for having a confuisng mess that is no help to anyone can someone delete it —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.162.84.252 (
talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Mass destruction of information by editor who previously tried to delete the article
I see several notable examples wiped out in a mass deletion spree done by an editor, who back in May of last year nominated the article for deletion, that ending in Keep. That means consensus was to keep the entire article, not have 90% of it wiped out. I am restoring the mass deletion. If you believe something doesn't belong there, discuss it here, and someone familiar with that series will comment on it.
DreamFocus 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)reply
In the mass destruction done, I noticed that even
The General Lee, which actually has its own article, was deleted, as well as others. Don't just wipe out something because you've never heard of it. It was a vehicle in a notable series, and someone who has seen that series can tell you how important it was, or if you look up reviews for it, you can surely find them.
DreamFocus 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)reply
The problem we're encountering here is one of the scope of this page. It seems that some believe that the page should only cover purely fictional vehicles, that is ones that are of a completely fictional design, such as the
Batmobile(s), while others would include ones that are simply custom versions of real vehicles, such as
The General Lee (which is little more than a 1969
Dodge Charger with a unique paint job), that are featured in fictional works. In reality, they're very different things, which is a major part of the reason that I believe this list is far too broad in scope to truly be useful.
oknazevad (
talk) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)reply
They play a significant role in fictional works. I'll change the definition to clarify that at the start of the article. Thanks for your input. I hadn't thought of that.
DreamFocus 04:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Lets get the facts right, my nomination did not end in a keep, it ended in a no concensus, I only voted this time because I was ntoified about this nomination. As with your reinstatement of entries and your tabloid sensationalistic "mass destruction" heading, what are you trying to include, fictional vehicle in fictional works or vehicle in fictional works, are we going to include the Devil Z from
Wangan Midnight when in fact like the General Lee, it is a modified car (modified Datsun Fairlady Z), are we going to include every cars that appeared in films such as the
Bullitt Mustang,
The Fast and the Furious Supra, the Akina Hachiroku from
Initial D or the
Pursuit Special from
Mad Max. Plus with your revision, tell me what is so significant about these vehicles in Command and Conquer and Halo, do any reliable third party source mention them, do any reliable third party sources list these entries, I'll tell you what, don't bother editing unless you can find a reliable third party sources for these entries. @Focus, I removed the General Lee, why, because that vehicle is not fictional at all, it is more like a car from fiction, I am doing my job at keeping this article from being another bloated dumping ground for some random fictional vehicles.
Donnie Park (
talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Doing your job? Those who hate an article do their job by destroying most of it?
[1] That doesn't really make any sense. I see no reason not to list any fictional vehicle from a major work of fiction. And the General Lee wasn't just a car with a paint job, and the doors welded shut so the characters had to enter and exit through the windows. It was a popular selling toy in those days, I owning one. We can all discuss what makes something notable enough to be on the list and form consensus. But I don't think someone who is trying to delete the article entirely, should be going around mass deleting most of it.
DreamFocus 06:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I wasn't destroying it, I deleted those that do not have its own article as well as the few that I doubted it qualified for entry.
Donnie Park (
talk) 09:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Criteria for inclusion on the list
Vehicle is from a notable series, AND at least one of the following:
Vehicle has its own Wikipedia article
Vehicle has ample coverage in media, they not able to review a series without mentioning it constantly, it a key aspect of it.
Vehicle is a prominent part of the series, and has unique features that set it apart from vehicles in the real world.
Has been released as a toy, sold on its own, not just bundled with main characters.
Comments? Anyone agree or disagree with any of that? Anything else to add to it?
DreamFocus 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Herbie,
Kitt and
General Lee all have their own articles. Herbie and Kitt could actually understand people and think, and had series built around them.
DreamFocus 06:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
"Vehicle has its own Wikipedia article" this is not required at all.
Ikip 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Part of a different conversation. He can't say he removed all those without articles, since some of those he removed did in fact have articles.
DreamFocus 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
A couple of points:
Herbie and Kitt couldn't really understand people and think, they were just props in the crap they appeared in.
You've used the word 'series' four times above and most fiction is not produced in serial form.
Jack, calling something "crap" or "fake" is not helpful, though it does express your personal opinion. Please note that in films, everything is a "prop". Some are created for the film and some are already in existance. And marketing of prop memorabilia whether as toys or books or placemats is big business. All that
Pokeman stuff springs to mind. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Obviously, I meant the characters. And I doubt anyone was confused by my statement. And I use the word series, since I don't know any other word for "work of fiction" and its quicker to write than "work of fiction". How can it be a fake article? Do you mean invalid? We'll see what consensus says on the AFD about that.
DreamFocus 07:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Illegitimate is more what I was thinking. Happy editing,
Jack Merridew 08:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
As I was working on a guideline myself before this one sprang up, I'll accept this guideline, though I've fixed one of the guidelines now stating ALL MUST have its own articles, redirects are banned; otherwise it will become a dumping ground for any random junk, also have you forgot the all-important
reliable third party sources.
Donnie Park (
talk) 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Don't edit someone else's post like that. Just write what you think it should be as a reply, and we'll see what everyone else thinks.
DreamFocus 09:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to do that, well this is what I am proposing on the top heading...
Vehicle is from a notable series with its own Wikipedia article (no redirect, not even to list of vehicles - these must be listed separately), AND at least one of the following:
As for the toy, trouble is that because mecha anime have became a subgenre of its own, nearly every mecha from an anime have been released as a toy, scale model or a garage model as well as those of sci-fi shows/films/books/comics, hence I say why having an article of its own is an important criteria than the toy part.
Donnie Park (
talk) 12:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
All the toys from a certain series could be combined. All the Star Wars vehicles are put in their own article already
[2]. And the vehicles for the various Gundam series fills up several different list articles.
[3] Any notable series will have its own list article, such as
List of Eureka Seven mecha.
DreamFocus 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Donnie Park, you wrote: "I'll accept this guideline, though I've fixed one of the guidelines now stating ALL MUST have its own articles, redirects are banned" yet I dont see this in your edits of project space.
[4] I am confused.
Ikip 05:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Quite sensible. However, while having an existing article is certainly a good thing, not having one (yet) is no proof of non-notability... only acts as an example that an article is needed. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sourced items should remain in the article. thanks.
Ikip 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
What about airships, Nemo's submarine, Robur the Conqueror, rocket belts (my word, YES...Buck Rogers and company!), starships, flying carpets, broomsticks, chariots drawn by the horses of the sun, a basket carried by swans, King Arthur's barge.... --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 17:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes. Its a fictional vehicle, and is a significant part of a notable work of fiction, then it should be added.
Harry Potter and other notable works have broomsticks in them, as flying vehicles.
Flying Carpets have their article already.
DreamFocus 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Before you considering adding, consider
WP:WTAF first otherwise edits will be reverted without warning.
Donnie Park (
talk) 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Relax, relax...I'm sure we can find enough fictional vehicles right here within our cozy little wikiverse. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oh, I see...we've redefined this list as a "List of Wikipedia articles about fictional vehicles". That narrows it down considerably, though of course makes it useless as a list; we should rename the article to make it clear. What's the point of this again? --00:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wtshymanski (
talk •
contribs)
Donnie Park, there was no consensus for you to mass delete most of the article during the AFD. And now you are threatening to erase anything someone adds without warning. We need to agree upon inclusion criteria, and then decide what to add back in, and what to keep out. Form consensus by discussion on the talk page, before any major changes, such as deleting 2/3rds of the article or trying to change its name.
DreamFocus 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't understand why are you still bleating about 2/3rd of the article gone, that nomination is over, just get over it, all I am doing is to make it AfD proof. I am making sure editors understand that we only allow articles of vehicles in fiction, not titles and any crap there is...I mean come on, I mean don't you have a standard?
Donnie Park (
talk) 09:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Teleportation
Are stepping disks, transfer booths, teleporters "vehicles" for the purpose of this list? If not, why are time machines included ( they don't travel in space at all, except incidentally to not leaving the protagonist somerewhere in intersteallar space as the Earth moves)? What about astral projection? --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Is it a magical item or something? Is it a vehicle you are riding? If there were notable flying disk that people road on, technologically based or moved by animal power, then it'd count. Not if its just a magical creation, or produced by psychic energies, or whatnot. A time machine is something you step into, and then it takes you someplace. Since the planet was not in the same position it is now, it moves you a distance to get to the same spot. Or moving across time is the same is moving across space, isn't it? The teleportation items from
The Fly I suppose would be a notable vehicle.
DreamFocus 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Check out the
Larry NivenKnown Space stories for examples of transfer booths and stepping disks (stepping disks don't fly, though Niven did put a stepping disk into a probe in "Ringworld Engineers"). "Star Trek" has a transporter. I thought magical vehicles were allowed (broomsticks, flying carpets, enchanted castles).
Niven never got around to writing it up as a story, but he did describe using a
Ringworld as a vehicle. Does it actually have to get to the story stage or can we just cite Niven's writing about the concept? --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Good point. I was thinking of Marvel comics having Magik able to make teleportation disk to teleport around space and time. Or in the Dark Elf novels they could open teleportation portals to step through to get to places. That wouldn't be a vehicle. Is it a spell cast by someone, or is it an actual thing? Does it vanish when they aren't using it?
DreamFocus 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
No animals?
We're excluding Gepetto's whale, Gandalf's horse, Gulliver's Yahoos and other living creatures, right? --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Gandalf's horse wasn't but a regular horse. Pegasus on the other hand, was the vehicle of a child of one of the ancient gods, so could be considered. The Wikipedia has an article called
Vehicle which defines things rather well. An animal drawn vehicle is still a vehicle, but "animals on their own, though used as a means of transport, are not called vehicles, but rather beasts of burden or draft animals."
DreamFocus 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Shadowfax doesn't sound like a standard-issue horse to me.
What about genetically-engineered cyborged insects grown to giant size and governed by a computer, turning them into vehicles? There were a couple of stories in
Analog on this theme a few years back, though I've packed mine away now. You could climb inside these things. John Varley's
Titan had "creatures" used for tranport, where the only technology is biotechnology.
Cinderella's pumpkin coach is a similar problem...it's an enchanted squash, basically.
We should probably exclude the tuft trees of the
Smoke Ring because they weren't dirigible, and though riding one after it broke was survivable, it usually wasn't intentional.
Phaëton's chariot definitely should be included. And a cuss at those militant folks who put diareses in the English Wikipedia. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Defintion of *real* vehicles is too limiting to be useful in this article. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Definition of what a vehicle is, is what you should follow. If it was method of transportation, then you could include bare back animals, and magic spells.
DreamFocus 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
USS Nimitz and the like
Are we excluding real vehicles that were used in fiction? For example the Nimitz was the star of
The Final Countdown (film). And the Titanic made a few movies, too. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Not a single way count as a fictional vehicle.
Donnie Park (
talk) 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree. There's no way that should be included. ----
DanTD (
talk) 23:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)reply
It isn't a fictional vehicle, if its 100% real.
DreamFocus 02:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
But the Nimitz in the movie wasn't 100% real, even if was just the name of the captain changed. I haven't hit IMDB yet but I'm sure there's a list of goofs for the movie that show discrepancies between the fictional portrayal of the Nimitiz and the real ship. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Unintentional goofs are different than intentional designs. You can't say, hey, that ship launched 17 missiles and I know it only has 16 that can fit into a launcher at a time, so it must be a new type of ship! No, actually, its just an accident. If they had lasers and force fields or it somehow managed to fly around, then it'd be something different. Or if it was famous for being someone's command center, and their famous command center just happened to be a modified aircraft carrier, that might be a different story.
DreamFocus 18:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)reply
What about space stations?
Well? Orbiting satellites, space stations, etc. ? --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 05:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Are they used primarily as transport vehicles? I don't think that is its primary function. The entire world is spinning, thus we're riding on it, that doesn't make it a
vehicle. And if you were in the cowboy days, and they were dragging you behind a horse to punish you, your duster(coat) wouldn't be considered a vehicle even if was something you ended up riding on, pulled by an animal. Nor does it count if a giant bird flies by and grabs you by the hair, and carries you off.
DreamFocus 05:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Criteria
Christine is out but Nomad is in. Why? Would the article owner care to elaborate? And poor old Jay Jay the Jet Plane is never going to get an article separate from the discussion of the TV series, unlike the drooling fanboys of various other animation series. ( This really should be split into "List of fictional automobiles", "List of fictional airships", etc.)--
Wtshymanski (
talk) 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
List of fictional dogs is a lot more inclusive. Most lists are. There's no point going about this enterprise with less than full enthusiasm. We've already decided this isn't a List of Wikipedia articles about fictional vehicles. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 14:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree
Christine is certainly a notable fictional vehicle. It is what the Stephen King horror novel is about. The book was popular enough to be made into a movie. And the vehicle is fictional, since that real life model of car doesn't come with evil possessed spirits that try to kill people. I'm going to add that back in with a few other things.
DreamFocus 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
We've already decided this is not
List of Wikipedia articles about fictional vehicles. There's a perfectly fine article about
Christine. It would be meaningless to dissect out Christine-the-57-Chevy from the story. There's no way to research Christine-the-vehicle separate from the story because *it* *has* *no* *existence* apart *FROM* the story. It's vehicles in FICTION, after all. Unless you can get a
microscope inside
Stephen King's head, there is no more source material to be had than the story itself. This is aproblem with all lists of fictional objects - they cannot be researched because the source material is only the primary source, the story.
If you separate out the fictional vehicle from it's story, you lose all context - it's not like you can write General Motors and get their current catalog of
Bolos, for example. What's left in a freestanding article is then pretty lame and is just a parroting of whatever description the story author saw fit to include - which in respectable literature rarely includes a data sheet. How many cylinders did Christine have? What final-axle ratio? Which stations preset on the radio? We don't know, and we don't *care* - a vehicle in fiction is serving a different role than a real-world vehicle. (There was a story in Analog last year where alien literature required a complete recitation of details like this.)
This article has survived 3 AfD nominations already, at this point it would take an air strike and possibly a neutron bomb to kill it. I don't think it's realistic to claim it's at risk of actually being deleted; Wikipedia is full of lists like
List of fictional New Zealanders or [List of fictional monkeys]] ( which latter article primly specifically excludes apes) and the notorious thousands of articles on individual
asteroids. If this list is going to be any use, it's got to be thorough - not just a smattering of articles where some fanboy has written about
Green Transformer and
Red Transformer and
Blue Transformer, but pointers to substantial articles about stories that have fictional vehicles.
The main reason I think fictional objects should not be discussed separately from their fictioanl universes is that it makes for a stronger encyclopedia, with fewer stubs, and the opportunity to better explain the role of the fictional objects in context. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a concise overview knowledge, not a parts catalog. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:WTAF is just an essay. Read the disclaimer up top. And threatening to have yet another AFD if you don't get your way, is just pathetic. Everyone else that has commented on this page has said you do NOT need an article for something on the list. Consensus is clear. Stop being disruptive, and accept consensus.
DreamFocus 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)reply
When did I threaten to have another AFD if I don't get my way, you tell me, I only said in the event of somebody nominated this again, not myself, especially when I have no intention of nominating this again. I only put this on nomination once when I getting the sense that I washed my hands with that list and only voted on the following one when I was notified by some bot. I can accept concensus for only that I don't have contribute to this pathetic list again, lets put it this way, I think it would be much better if every article on Wikipedia got deleted, so nobody will have anything to argue and we got things to make out lives useful.
Donnie Park (
talk) 22:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Power suit
Not the ones with pinstripes...powered exoskeletons, like
Starship Troopers or
Forever War or about 11 billion things called "gundam" that I have no great interest in reading. Not a flying car, not an automobile, usually have some flight/cross country capability that would seem to make them vehicles. I think they need their own heading. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
OK, how about the symbiotes from
The Ophiuchi Hotline? It does let you get around the rings of Saturn comfortably, but might be considered more of a life-style choice than a vehicle. Opinions? --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Is there an actual vehicle, or do they just send information about their final brain scans somewhere, and then get recreated? That isn't really them, just a recreation. So they aren't being transported.
DreamFocus 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
What? No, nothing like that. You walk up to a pile of green goo, it swarms up your hand and envelopes you, tapping into your brain, circulatory and excretory systems. After a few hours or day of sensory deprivation a personality develops and you can talk to it. After some practice, the human/symb can step out into the vacuum and start living in space. Read the book - real SF has stuff that you never seen in the Japanimation. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I read through the Wikipedia article. Is it a vehicle, or just a protective covering? Sounds like a new body more than a vehicle, like the
Symbiote (comics). Of course, some might consider the human body a vehicle for the brain/soul. What happens if you put your brain in a robot body to walk around with? That counts as a new body, not a vehicle, doesn't it? Then again, if you are in a mecha, its a vehicle, and if you die and your brain gets fused with that same mecha, does it become a body instead of a vehicle? When the people writing the dictionaries decided what every word meant, they didn't think too far into the future, so are going to be outdated.
DreamFocus 18:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)reply
James Bond's car quite notable
A
Lotus Esprit S 1 in the 1977 film
The Spy Who Loved Me (James Bond 007) is quite well known, I finding plenty of news about it in the movie, and even outside when they put it on display somewhere. [
[6]] It never had any actual name, just a regular car made into something quite fictional, adding in the ability to act as a submarine, torpedoes included.
DreamFocus 21:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Whoops.
[7] Already on a list linked to. Nevermind.
DreamFocus 21:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Buckaroo Banzai's Jet car
Notable element of a notable film, something talked about, and they even made a toy from it. Most famous inventions of the character, what he is best known for. [
[8]]
DreamFocus 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)reply
What makes a featured list
See
Wikipedia:Featured list criteria . There are only 6: Prose, lead, comprehensiveness, structure, style and stability. Featured lists I've looked at have references, even if the entry is also a blue link - seems redundant to me. --
Wtshymanski (
talk) 19:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Why Does This Article Exist, Come Again?
I read through this comment page and while it's always refreshing to see Wiki editors not fighting (much) and calling each other names, my biggest problem with this article is it has zero citations or references. If we follow Wiki's rules that: any information without a citation may be removed, then by definition this article won't exist. Some suggestions would be: anyone this invested with coming up with long lists of information would be equally invested in citing where they got this information (and if they're not I suppose that reflects the trivia nature of lists), or we could turn this into a category page (again, there is no actual information on this page outside of links). Or better yet, that actual information I just mentioned, a paragraph after each category justifying its existence to those who don't know much about fantasy worlds and the machines within them might be nice.
Duende-Poetry (
talk) 14:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
It does not say "any information without a citation may be removed" anywhere that I'm aware of. Only if its slanderous about a real person, or someone sincerely doubts the information.
DreamFocus 15:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Hello! Thank you for replying. I guess where I am concerned, especially after reading how this page is currently presented, if this falls under these guidelines for Wiki or not:
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
2. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation.
I understand one person's idea about organization and navigation can be confusing to another person, but not personally being a
fanboy the information presented here, as it stands, doesn't explain to me why it's here. That's why I posted the This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject, because it all seems very arbitrary. For example, under Flying Cars you have the Spinner from
Blade Runner, but not the flying taxi from
Fifth Element. You have the Hoverboard from
Back to the Future, but not the Hovercrafts from the original
Johnny Quest series. There are mention of some random tanks, but not Tank Girl's. You have a category for Flying or moving castles (which, I suppose, could be argued could be considered a Magical vehicle too) but not Baba-Yaga's chicken-legged hut. And that's my whole point, it's random and amateurish, no one has done any work to explain why any of this is important besides someone declaring "I'm going to make a list." I can replace one arbitrary entry with another it doesn't actually effect anything. Plus, there's no citation and the categories are, in places, very vague. I mean, if Herbie is considered a Magical vehicle, why isn't Thomas the Train? Or any of the vehicles in Bob the Builder (or the billion and half other cartoons featuring talking vehicles) So my question to you is, if this is an article of value to you, how can we make this better?
Duende-Poetry (
talk) 16:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
If something is missing then add it. Does the back story for Herbie say it is magical, and not just mechanical, or supernatural(possessed by someone's spirit)? Thomas and whatnot are in their own section, which links to the pages that list all of their trains, and then link to their individual articles such as
Thomas the Tank Engine. Most of those things on any of these list(some broken off to side articles linked to in this article) have articles dedicated to them.
DreamFocus 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Hmm, yes, maybe I'm not making myself clear. I can see how this is organized, but so far what I don't hear, and as an editor would like to know, is why is this list necessary? Why is the information presented in this list necessary? Wiki tries hard to avoid
trivia, which is why in
encyclopediaarticles there is some text explaining to the reader why they should care (i.e., "this is so not trivial!") So I'm not calling for
original research, but what I am asking for is to explain to me how we can make this better, so if someone asked me "justify this page, why should we keep it?" right now, as the page is, I don't think I could come up with an argument for keeping it
Duende-Poetry (
talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The Wiki does not try hard to do anything, since its not a living entity. A small number of people try to eliminate things they don't like, but the overwhelming majority of people are tolerate of such things. It meets all requirements for a list article. That's why it survived three attempts to delete it at AFD already. It aids in navigation, for anyone curious about finding out information about famous fictional vehicles.
DreamFocus 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Hello again. I've been thinking about my approach in wanting to make this article better and I think I might have perhaps gotten off on the wrong foot. It's a good thing we have editors here who feel passionately about the work they do and I think Wiki would be far less impressive without them and what they bring to these articles. I think I was too hasty in my assessment of the value of information provided here. Sometimes when I get caught up trying to improve things I tend to be a little ... narrow in my visions. If there is anything I can do to be of assistance here, please let me know. In the meantime, thanks for the hard work.
Duende-Poetry (
talk) 02:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)reply