Talk:Pioneer Zephyr

Revenue service photos

The two photos that are shown of Zephyrs in revenue service are more likely of the Mark Twain Zephyr than the Pioneer Zephyr since they show the train arriving at locations in Illinois (which were not on the Pioneer Zephyr's revenue route). I have been able to find only one photo of the Pioneer Zephyr in revenue service online ([1]), and the page I found it on seems to indicate that it's a royalty-free image, but I haven't found a definitive answer on whether I can use it in this article or not. A copy without the watermarks is here. slambo 16:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the reference material that I was looking at last night says that the Pioneer Zephyr route changed over time, so that assumption may not be entirely correct. Further research is needed here. Slambo (Speak) 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice to haves

• A simple stick-map of the dash route on a stick-map outline of the US would really punch up that section. If one doesn't exist I might be able to do it if someone can confirm if today's tracks run the same route as then. Or, even better, if there's a messy one someone can provide I can clean it up (would the route shown on the PDF on the amtrak.com Routes page be a close enuf approximation?).
• Also in that section, an approximation of the distance of the dash would be nice, along with some idea of typical or average rail speeds of the time. I'd re-state the average speed of the dash here, too.
• If the front of the train was destroyed in the 1939 crash, I assume there was some human cost as well; is there any info on how many people were killed or injured?
• Was/is stainless steel also not as recyclable as regular steel and iron, which were also recycled during WWII?

I think that's it. Niteowlneils 03:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Added the length of the dash, 1,015 miles. I don't know how this tidbit got overlooked. Anyway, on the dash's route map, I can put something together too, much like I did for Image:DME and ICE route map.JPG, I just haven't found a good reference for the CBQ's route in 1934; I know a couple of the cities the railroad connected to, but I'd like to get some more definite facts before I start on that. My guess is that from Denver, it traveled to Lincoln, Omaha, Kansas City, Galesburg and then on to Chicago, but I'd like to be sure before I state it as a fact. I've found a photo of the "Dawn-To-Dusk Club" (the passengers on the dash) after their arrival in Chicago, I'm just waiting for permission to use it here.

I'm not sure about the injury toll for the accident that was mentioned, the Johnston, et. al., book only mentions "with tragic consequences" and that the cab was destroyed. I'll see if I can find any more details.

Stainless steel was not as easily recyclable as other steels at the time, probably for the same reasons that a new welding technique needed to be developed before it could find extensive use as a carbody material. I forget which of the references I saw that note in, but it was definitely one that is listed in the article. slambo 04:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I just got an email back from the repository that hosts the photo I mentioned above. Unfortunately, I would not be able to use it for the article without submitting a use fee. Oh well. Time to send of an info request letter to the NMRA library to see if I can get the route to build a map from. slambo 16:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

For a route map, would WP:TRAIL help you do this ? Pickle 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that could be used to make a schematic of the route, but for this article, I'd think that lines drawn on a US map, like I was able to create for the Scott Special article, would be more appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Shotwelding/spotwelding?

The technique described in the article as 'shotwelding' is known as 'spot welding' today. Is there a reason for refering to it as shotwelding?--FeloniousMonk 06:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

read the patent. It is not plain old spotwelding, but a significant refinement thereof. Fawcett5 13:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fawcett5 is right. The patent calls it shotwelding, so that's the terminology used here. slambo 13:43, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Trainset?

To me this term is ambiguous and implies that this train is in fact a model railroad train. Maybe Trainset is the correct professional term, but for the benefeit of people who are trying to learn something new, perhaps this added confusion could be eliminated. (unsigned comment from 209.222.223.58)

As a model railroader of 20+ years with many professional railroad acquaintances, "trainset" to me means a group of railroad cars that are permanently or semipermanently coupled to form a single unit for operations; while "train set" (note that there is a space in this one) is a collection of train equipment, either prototype or model, but more often associated with models. I haven't seen a printed resource to back this up, or to state it to the contrary. I'm going with how the term is used in the industry. I will add a note in the article to explain the term and its meaning in the industry. slambo 22:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Italics

The italicized "s" in the possessive form of Zephyr is incorrect. I only know of two ways of correcting this, both with HTML, but apparently that is frowned upon. Wayward 07:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I took a quick look through my copy of the MLA Style Manual (ISBN 0-87352-699-6) on this one. I didn't see anything either way for possessives of italicized names. Sec. 3.4.7.e on possessives simply states "To form the possessive of any singular proper noun, add an apostrophe and an s." We could take this to imply that the "'s" should not be italicized, but that's something that I would expect the MLA to spell out specifically. Since it doesn't say there about italics, I'm more inclined to leave it as it is. As to de-italicizing the possessive here, it shouldn't be that difficult: ''Zephyr'''s produces Zephyr's. slambo 16:47, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed., p. 201, 6.29: "When a proper name is in italic type, its possessive ending is preferably set in roman". The time abbreviation in the article is also incorrect. There should be a space between the numerical time and the abbreviation, and periods between the letters of the abbreviation: 7:04 a.m. and 8:09 p.m. I corrected this once, but… Wayward 03:29, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Okeydokey. I'll defer since Chicago specifically mentions it and MLA doesn't. Personally, I have no preference on this issue, I was just going with what I had at hand. slambo 15:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Minor addition: When time is abbreviated with small capitals, the periods are unnecessary. Wayward 20:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've got them all updated as noted. slambo 15:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is a wiki problem with your last edit, causing unintended bold and italic text. Wayward 18:37, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Doh! Should have seen that coming. I've wrapped apostrophes in nowiki tags so they render properly now. slambo 20:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Just a historian's note here, but all GM locomotives built prior to 1941 were built by the Electro-Motive Corporation (EMC). The Electro-Motive Division (EMD) was formed on January 1, 1941 with the merger of the Winton Engine Company with EMC.

Cab controls

Does the Zephyr feature any deadmans' of any kind? Myrtone@Pioneer Zephyr.com.au

To answer the question posed in the photo caption; Yes, there is a deadman's pedal partially visible in this photo. While the pedal itself is obscured behind the seat's lower cushion, the gray object just above the "right front" corner of the seat is recognizable to me as the mechanism of such a pedal. 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for all the edits

I've just made a series of edits to the article following a comment left on the {{Ref patent}} talk page. I thought it might be useful to see different ways in which the patent templates can be used to put different levels of information around an article. Each of my three edits works in a different way,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pioneer_Zephyr&diff=137683190&oldid=137657588
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pioneer_Zephyr&diff=next&oldid=137683190
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pioneer_Zephyr&diff=next&oldid=137685099

so please take a look and decide which one you think works best for this particular article, if any! GDallimore (Talk) 14:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Way cool, thanks for looking into this. I'll be reviewing the options and selecting one for consistency soon. Slambo (Speak) 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's interesting to see how people want to use these templates so that I can try to improve the accordingly. By the way, if you want a complete example of how adding patents into a bibliography section or patent section can work, take a look at Atomic line filter. Personally, I'm not sure I like the style, but it had to be done there because one editor didn't like the different styles between citing a book and citing a patent, whereas I was not willing to have inventors named as the "authors" of a patent, since they very rarely are. GDallimore (Talk) 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Engineer/driver

Yesterday I changed "driver" in a photo caption to "engineer"; this morning, GDallimore changed it back. Although I am very much an Anglophile, I do feel this is rather discourteous. I've been corrected several times when editing railroad - sorry, railway articles by British speakers who insist on saying things like "goods wagons" and "bogies" - but the Pioneer Zephyr was an entirely American invention and is unmistakably an American topic, and so I strongly believe American usage should prevail in this particular instance.

If I had done this on, say, the Flying Scotsman article, GDallimore would have been perfectly justified in correcting me; I hope all can see that the same courtesy should apply in reverse as well. This is not merely my personal preference: please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic.

I have, however, wikilinked the word "engineer" to the relevant article which should clarify the term for anyone who may be confused, which was GDallimore's stated concern. Textorus (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how following WP:BRD is discourteous - something which you have failed to do, I see. GDallimore (Talk) 23:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TIES is about spelling variations. This is not a spelling variation, it is a different word. WP:COMMONALITY applies better to this situtation and suggests using the least potentially confusing word as I argued when reverting your change. Eg, alternative instead of alternate. GDallimore (Talk) 23:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusing to whom? I seriously doubt that any native English speakers, from any continent, would be truly confused about the meaning of either word in the context shown; but even if they were, the wikilink I inserted there takes them straight to an article which provides 5 different synonyms in American and Commonwealth usage in the very first sentence, which would immediately demystify their minds.

That is what wikilinks are for, no?

My use of the word engineer, moreover, is entirely consistent with the rest of the article about this American train. The article is full of Americanisms, both in spelling and in terms: e.g., railroad, railroad cars, freight trains, baggage car, trucks, grade crossings, even aluminum - not, please notice, railway, railway carriages, goods train, luggage van, bogies, level crossings, and aluminium. So I'm at a loss to understand either your thinking or your reaction to the change of one single word, which is very much in line with the rest of this article and with MOS guidelines. Textorus (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

While I concur that the term engineer in an article about trains built in America and operated in America is a reasonable choice, as virtually all Americans would understand—and expect—the word engineer in this context, I suggest a compromise: According to Railroad engineer, the proper term used in America is locomotive engineer. Use that, and you've not only clarified the term, but you're being consistent with other parts of Wikipedia. (I also find it to be more self-explanatory than railroad engineer, which could imply that one engineers railways.) As for the etymology, I suspect it goes back to the time when the operator of a locomotive required a fair amount of engineering skill to keep the beast in operation smoothly and safely, and/or a less Latinate interpretation of engineer as "one who does things to or with engines," as compared to the sense derived from ingeniā "to design, devise." (Ref. [2]) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

KISS. 'Engineer' and 'Driver' imply different skill sets, and it strikes me that the word engineer is 'over-engineered' (ie ambiguous) in this context. The solution applied, using a link to dab it, is yet another redundant move as a link there doesn't really add value. I think Hans' proposal below is a creative and 'commonal' way of solving the problem. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure the reference to the person who, um, engines? engineers??? the train is really necessary. This person is not visible in the photo, and the simplest way out would be to rewrite the caption to avoid the issue. E.g.: "Pioneer Zephyr cab with controls". This way nobody will be confused. Perhaps someone finds an even better formulation? Hans Adler 20:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an even better idea! I like that. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. FWIW, "railroad engineer" would be worse, not better, to me (a Brit): that would not be anyone on board, but someone involved in planning, construction and maintenance of the railway system. Similarly, "locomotive engineer" would merely narrow it to vehicles rather than infrastructure, and still not mean anyone on board. (And I agree that wikilinking is not a solution; apart from anything else, my expectations of these terms is sufficiently strong to prevent my using such a wikilink and discovering my error.) Yes, recasting to avoid the issue is a good solution here. PL290 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This solution seems to avoid the key problem which I see coming up time and again and needs a solid answer. As PL290 says, the problem here is that in BrEng an engineer is someone who fixes things, not someone who drives things. The link does not help because people aren't going to look up a word they think they already know. The other examples of "confusing" US terminology are not actually confusing because there is no ambiguity or different in meaning for the sam word being used in different ways in different countries. An unambiguous word is clearly the best one to use. GDallimore (Talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

land speed record

Intro says 115 mph; text of article says 130 mph. Jnmwiki (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dawn to Dusk Club photo

File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club 1936.JPG This photo was published by the Chicago Tribune as the first regular service Denver Zephyr made its run in 1936. There's a photo similar to the one in the article (also non-free) at the McCook, NE public library. Both are dated 1934, but in all three photos, the men are wearing the same suits and ties.

The "Tribune" photo looks to have originally been taken in 1934 and run with the copy seen on the photo's back. Contacting the Burlington Historical Society with questions brought no response. I'm proposing that the free use photo replace the present one of the "Dawn to Dusk Club" as it appears to have been taken on the same day. We hope (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My preference is to retain the long standing current image which, although smaller, is still a superior quality image. Centpacrr (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk about misleading hyperbole...

This article contained the ridiculous exaggeration, "Even if they did have the money to travel, the equipment that railroads were using to carry passengers had not changed much since the middle of the 19th century." I've removed it. There was a world of difference in size, speed, and safety between the early, slow-running, modest-sized steam locomotives and small, frail passenger cars of the mid-1800s and the massive, fast steam locomotives and long, heavily-built passenger cars of the early 1930s. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

References

I don't have time to work on this article right now, but we really can't have a featured article with entire unreferenced paragraphs. Mackensen (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pioneer Zephyr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msichicago.org/exhibit/zephyr/history/nytimes/nytimes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618230700/http://www.dorneypark.com/public/inside_park/rides/rides/zephyr.cfm to http://www.dorneypark.com/public/inside_park/rides/rides/zephyr.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930071656/http://www.railmodel.com/bulletins/chl/CBQ_BM_Shovelnoses.htm to http://www.railmodel.com/bulletins/chl/CBQ_BM_Shovelnoses.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pioneer Zephyr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227192707/http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5623.pdf to http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5623.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pioneer Zephyr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309160358/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/streamliners/peopleevents/p_rbudd.html to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/streamliners/peopleevents/p_rbudd.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://photoswest.org:8080/cgi-bin/cw_cgi?resultsScreen+31865+1+4+0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting information

The section Early Zephyr trains says:

The six car sets 9904 and 9905 began service as the Denver Zephyr in May 1936 . . .

It is uncited.

The sources cited in Denver Zephyr#The first Denver Zephyrs state that the Advance Denver Zephyr of May 1936 were 9900 and 9903 (PZ and MTZ). Kablammo (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

In reliance on those sources, I have edited the article to remove the uncited assertion quoted above. Kablammo (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Article issues

As a "featured article" this is supposed to be "...considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer." There has been some referencing issues and a tag from February 2017 (See "References" above) that has been unresolved concerning unsourced sections. To even be considered for B-Class referencing cannot be an issue.

A solution, short of finding sources or a demotion, is to remove the material that creates the issue. I have hidden the unsourced section and removed the tag. If someone wishes inclusion there needs to be sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

URFA/2020 review and concerns

I reviewed this article for WP:URFA/2020 and I am concerned that the article no longer meets the featured article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• The "Concept and construction" section is quite long. Can this be split into two sections and summarised/trimmed?
• Multiple paragraphs do not end with an inline citation. While this might not have been necessary in 2007 during the article's FAR, my experience with recent FACs has caused me to think that this standard has risen. An inline citation at the end of the paragraph makes it clear to the reader what is verifying the last sentence's information.
• The ""Silver Streak" film" does not contain any inline citations.
• The "Legacy" section contains one-sentence paragraphs. Can this section be reformatted to have paragraphs instead?

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns? I am pinging Slambo as they were the article's FAC nominator and they are still actively editing. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll work a bit more on it in the coming weeks. Slambo (Speak) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Gathering my resources. Some of the references cited are (widely available) books in my personal collection and are a bit buried in my basement, so I'm digging them out again. Slambo (Speak) 03:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Still digging out a few resources. I have some handy now. Work is a bit busy this week, but with more time opening up soon, I will try to pop in more frequently to work on it. I moved the Byron book from Further Reading to References because I now have a copy of that book and will use it for further citations. Slambo (Speak) 22:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Now working on adding details and more citations. I'll be working on it more on and off over the next couple weeks as I have time around my regular schedule. Slambo (Speak) 16:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slambo: are you still working on this? I still see some paragraphs that need citations. Feel free to ping me once your edits are complete. Z1720 (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still trying to work on this. The last couple months of 2022 were an unintentional Wiki break. I've been editing on a nearly daily basis since September 2004, and now that we're into 2023, one of my goals is to get back to regular editing again, starting today. Slambo (Speak) 18:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Slambo: are you or any other editors still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

infobox about the Zephyr trains overall, or just this one?

For example, it states "Number built 1 trainset (3 cars)". That suggests the infobox is about the Pioneer Zephyr exclusively.

But a reader could reasonably expect this article to be about all the contemporary Zephyrs, and be misled into thinking there was only one train set (despite the text mentioning more).

The page Zephyr could be argued would be a better destination for an overall info box, so we have somewhere to place the total number of Zephyr trains. Currently though it's only a disambiguation page.

CapnZapp (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a summary article about Burlington's Zephyrs would be useful; Zephyr (train) doesn't fit that bill right now. I disagree that this article is the natural location for it, and that readers would expect it to be here. Mackensen (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pioneer Zephyr/archive2 that I believe there's too much detail about the other trainsets. Their existence is relevant and merits mention (especially the Flying Yankee and other trainsets that heavily derived from the Pioneer Zephyr), but as it stands this article does go too much into detail about them. I propose an article titled Burlington Zephyrs or similar that covers all of the trains with the Zephyr name. I also proposed removing the Zephyr tributes in advertising, commercial products, and sports section as lacking any substantial sourcing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Mackensen: It can be difficult for an expert on a subject to appreciate how an article can come across as confusing for a regular reader so let me state: this article is not especially clear it is about just one out of many similar-but-not-identical Zephyr trains. Most trains don't have individual articles for each unit. This is compounded by there being no other well-developed article about the Zephyrs as a whole, again making this article's info box the natural place to look for summary info (such as the number of units built). CapnZapp (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings: I would wonder why you aren't simply creating the article, but it appears you are in an active discussion over at that other place, so I'll let that play out. CapnZapp (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Because I have a full time job and other responsibilities. There are many articles I want to create but haven't had the time or energy to do so. I have limited time that I can dedicate to Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what I would like is: an infobox somewhere that summarizes the run of Zephyr trains. How many train sets were built? CapnZapp (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a ~3kb bite out of the article that didn't discuss the Pioneer Zephyr at all in favor of the other trains. More could probably be removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but I think what a reader expects the most, is a summary page for all Zephyr trains (and an infobox for all of them). Then, as a secondary interest, individual pages for each one. Alternatively, make it much more clear (to a non train buff) that even though all these trains had "Zephyr" in the name, they really aren't that similar, and should best be considered individual trains just with confusingly similar names. (I don't know which solution mirrors reality best) Hope this clears it up that my aim starting this talk section was not primarily or even secondarily "please remove stuff about other Zephyrs than the Pioneer Zephyr". Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there should be a page that covers all the Zephyr trains. But this article is not the place for it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Origin of name

This paragraph currently reads:

Budd took the task of naming the train very seriously. He wanted a name that started with the letter Z because this train was intended to be the "last word" in passenger service; Budd and his coworkers looked up the last words in their dictionaries, but neither zymurgy nor zyzzle conveyed the meanings that Budd was looking for. The name of the new train came from The Canterbury Tales, which Budd had been reading. The story begins with pilgrims setting out on a journey, inspired by the budding springtime and by Zephyrus, the gentle and nurturing west wind. Budd thought that would be an excellent name for a sleek new traveling machine—Zephyr.

This is problematic because while it adheres to the sources it gives off the impression Budd coined the term. Please rewrite in such a way our editorial voice doesn't just give our sources a pass. Uncritically parroting our sources makes us appear as if zymurgy and zyzzle really were the only two words to be found starting in 'z' but that doesn't change the fact Shakespeare used "zephyr" in 1611 (also alluding to Zephyrus).

That our sources might possibly be entirely oblivious to this, does not give us the right to be. Since my attempt was reverted, it's your turn, User:Trainsandotherthings. CapnZapp (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You are asking me to engage in synthesis by taking the statement that Shakespeare used the word in 1611 and attempting to claim that's where Budd got the word, without any source to support this. I will not do so. I don't know that the part about other words with Z is needed, but you can't just drop in "someone used this word before" and say that proves that's where the word came from. I don't know what you're trying to say with the phrase "uncritically parroting our sources" as everything we do here is in fact based on reliable sources, especially secondary ones which support this claim - you've only produced a primary source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You make two erroneous conclusions. One, you labor under the misunderstanding I want (you) to claim Budd got the word from any other source than the listed one, which would be preposterous. Two, you appear to think I want to "prove" the train name came from elsewhere. Neither is correct - read what I actually wrote above, instead what you might think I wrote. I never asked you to change the claim "Budd got his name from Canterbury Tales" and I don't want you to. That Budd got the word from Canterbury is not up for discussion. Instead, I noted how our sources appear to be oblivious to the fact the word was used before Budd. And how the current wording create a strong risk by omission: that our readers might conclude Budd coined the word. Now then. I've basically rephrased my second paragraph (starting with This is problematic...), and I expect you to assume you are having a good faith discussion with a fellow experienced Wikipedian and ask constructive questions if you still have misgivings, User:Trainsandotherthings. CapnZapp (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're upset, but I am thoroughly unconvinced by your arguments thus far. If you add in "Shakespeare used this word in 1611", even within explicitly drawing any connection, the effect is that readers will assume there is a connection, as why else would it be mentioned in the article at all? If he got the word from Canterbury Tales, then clearly he didn't create the word, yes? If you agree that Budd picked the name by seeing it in Canterbury Tales, then what is it that you're asking to be changed? That we just drop in "Shakespeare used this word once", despite no sources on the train making that connection? I will repeat my previous statement that only using a primary source for what you are proposing is not sufficient and certainly is inappropriate for a FA. Honestly, I'm close to just letting the FAR go through and delist at this point, I've put in hours of my limited free time into trying to improve this article and gotten precisely zero help from anyone else, only criticism. I have no special attachment to this article, I just saw it was going through FAR and thought I would try to save a train article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The main problem as I see it, User:Trainsandotherthings is that you appear to see yourself as the injured party here. Let me remind you that it was you who reverted me. You focus on your issues, complaining your "limited free time" and how little help you've gotten, completely forgetting that it was you who actively decided to intervene. The only relevant problem here - right here in this particular talk section - is that you chose to stand in my way. While that is your right, I must first ask you to discuss all your other issues elsewhere, since I am not here to help you with your time management. I am here to collaborate with you in reaching a phrasing we both agree to. If you persist in opposing my suggestions, then it falls upon you to come up with a better solution amicable to all parties. If you don't have the time, the easiest solution is just to disengage.

Now then, back on topic: as I understand it your complaint is that we should not needlessly mention an irrelevant fact. Okay so I will attempt to rewrite the paragraph to avoid what I all along have stated to be the issue: while our sources may give off the impression Budd coined "Zephyr" (inadvertently or not) we, the Wikipedia voice, know better, and should not repeat their sentiment. CapnZapp (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Please strike your vicious, hurtful, and patently false personal attack. My "time management" abilities are none of your fucking business, am I clear? You asked earlier why I hadn't created an article on the Zephyrs, and I gave you an honest answer. I did not expect you to turn around and weaponize that against me, manipulating my words in the process. As I had indicated four days ago, I was disengaging. You could have taken the win and let things lie. But you had to come back and make an attack against my character. One thing you'll learn about me is I do not tolerate bullies, and that's exactly what you're revealing yourself to be. Your feelings were so hurt by someone daring to disagree with your edit that you had to start throwing out insults. As someone who claims to be an experienced editor, you know better. Your unbecoming behavior is very disappointing.

I dared to "intervene", you say. I was trying to repair a featured article in danger of delistment, actively at FAR. I was active in this effort well before you showed up and started making drive-by edits. I reverted your edits because I believed they were not improvements and actually reversed progress I had made in improving the article's accuracy and citations. You don't care about that, though, all that matters is that you "win" and get your preferred version in the article. And if someone objects, you just bully them until you get your way. It's no surprise your talk page archive is littered with complaints and warnings about personal attacks you've made and edit warring you've engaged in.

I also stand by my observation that no one else has made any serious efforts to improve the article and avoid delisting. How many uncited sections have you cited? What improvements have you made besides adding a citation to a dictionary? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)