Diskussion:Jeepomotive

Der Artikel „Jeepomotive“ wurde im Juli 2015 für die Präsentation auf der Wikipedia-Hauptseite in der Rubrik „Schon gewusst?“ vorgeschlagen. Die Diskussion ist hier archiviert. So lautete der Teaser auf der damaligen Hauptseite vom 5.08.2015; die Abrufstatistik zeigt die täglichen Abrufzahlen dieses Artikels.

Weitere Fotos:

• www.awm.gov.au/...
• malayanrailways
• Military Willys Jeep on the railway --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 20:58, 13. Jul. 2015 (CEST)
• PAPAR, NORTH BORNEO 1945-10-09
• BEAUFORT, NORTH WEST BORNEO 1945-09-18
• BEAUFORT, BORNEO. 1945-07-22 --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 22:38, 13. Jul. 2015 (CEST)

To begin, my apologies for the English.

This article appears to be a calque of the earliest English language wiki article [[1]], or vice versa, and suffers from the same problems...which are within my ability to recognize, but not to correct, except in English. Any help would be appreciated. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 03:30, 4. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

To detail a few of the issues:

• "Jeepomotive" is not an English word, nor even common slang, and the German article uses it for three separate meanings. Two uses are almost certainly journalistic wordplay. The third may be also.

• Using an automobile as a railcar was common from the early years of the twentieth century, an example from 1912 is given on the english wiki page. [[2]]

• The reference to Major Wiley is not the earliest use in English, it comes from 1945 (1940 is the year of his college graduation.) The use is jocular, a play on words on "locomotive". The use mentioned by the Coast Guard was of a "stretch" jeep, running on beach sand, on ordinary rubber tires. Again, the usage is almost certainly a play on words on "automotive engineering."

• Australia did not even get to Northern Borneo until after the war had ended in Europe.

• Most rail jeep usage in Burma was by the US, although the British and Australians used them as well there, and occurred well before use in Borneo. THe cite used to claim usage in India in 1950 is a description of US use in Burma, which was published in 1950.

• The photo of a test demonstration is all US men and equipment, although the location is Australian.

The current version [[3]] has most of these issues corrected, although, frankly, I'm not sure this is really worth its own article. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 05:43, 4. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Oberflächlich

Der Name legt nahe, dass es sich um ein Fahrzeug auf Basis des (Willys?-) Jeeps handelt. Und dann schrauben wir da mal 'n paar Stahlräder dran und dann passt das schon - egal ob die verlegten Gleise Schmalspur sind oder whatever... Ui... 82.152.40.119 00:41, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Yes, actually, and not just for this vehicle. Draisines (in the Continental sense) have been made of ordinary road vehicles from the earliest times, and freight locomotives were improvised from (usually larger) trucks [[4]]. As for the rail gauge, of course the wheel had to be selected or adapted for the correct width, although by using a combination of reversable wheels and spacer plates, most gauges found in a particular area could be accomodated on a jeep-sized vehicle. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 07:34, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Für die Normalspur ist es gut vorstellbar, der Williy-Jeep war "Außenkante" - und die Räder sind eher "außen" - ca. 1,50m breit, Normalspur hat (innen) 1,435m, da sehe ich jetzt auf den ersten Blick keinen Haken (Auge mal Pi), für Breitspur sollte eine Verbreiterung auch kein so großes Problem sein, in der Quelle (Australian War Memorial, Reference No OG3138) bei Schmalspur (~ 1 m) steht durchaus, dass die Achsen verändert werden mussten. Werde dies mal etwas einpflegen. -- WikiMax - 14:37, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Anhängelast

Statt in einem sachlichen Wikipediaartikel zu erwähnen, dass die Fahrer ihr Bestes gaben, um betriebsbedingte Verspätungen aufzuholen sollte man vielleicht doch besser genauer physikalisch erklären, warum die Anhängelasten auf der Schiene erheblich höher als auf der Straße sein dürfen - statt es einfach in einem Satz "zu behaupten". --93.200.253.87 06:46, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Das gehört zum Eisenbahn-Allgemeinwissen und kann dort nachgelesen werden; man kann nicht bei jedem Eisenbahnthema alle Grundlagen wie Reibung, Spurführung usw. wiederholen. --Peter2 (Diskussion) 21:51, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Wieder einer der Momente, wo ich mich für Wikipediartikel eigentlich am liebsten fremdschämen möchte. ... wenn es denn nicht so wäre, dass beide Sachen, die ich kritisierte, eh schon geändert sind und daher jedes weitere Wort überflüssig ist. --93.200.238.241 09:46, 8. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Anhängelast #2

Im eher fragwürdigen Absatz von der hohen Anhängelast auf den Philippinen stimmen die 52 Tonnen eher aus Übesetzungsgründen noch ein weiteres mal nicht. Entweder sind die (sehr fragwürdigen) "52 tons" in der Quelle "US-Tons" (short tons), was naheliegend wäre, also "nur" 47 Tonnen oder bei britischer "Imperial tons" wären es gerundet 53 Tonnen. Entweder sollte man die Quellenangaben stehen lassen und in Klammern mit metrischer Ca.-Angabe versehen, also "... 52 tons (ca. 50 Tonnen) ..." oder umgekehrt schreiben "... ca. 50 Tonnen (52 tons) ...". Alternativ macht man es wie die englsichsprachige Wikipedia und lässt das Soldaten-/Jeep-Fan-Latein ganz weg.
Außerdem von der englischen WP-Diskussionsseite: Jeepomotive? ... "Rail Jeep" was far more common.-- WikiMax - 09:38, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Bremsen?

Eine entscheidende Frage ist: wie wurde gebremst? Bei nur einem angehängten Waggon ist das Bremsgewicht doch schon so groß, dass eine normale PKW-Bremse das nicht mehr packt. Und "richtige" Eisenbahnbremssysteme wird man kaum eingebaut haben? Früher wurden auch bei uns in Friedenszeiten LKW, Unimogs und Bagger als Zugmaschinen für Waggons benutzt, aber das in der Regel nur zum Rangieren in Firmenanschlüssen und nur mit Schritttempo. Mit den hier angegebenen Geschwindigkeiten und Anhängelasten wäre die Fuhre doch wohl nicht mehr beherrschbar gewesen.ManfredV (Diskussion) 13:17, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

sehe ich ähnlich, wobei theoretisch die einzelnen Anhänger ja wie in ganz alten Eisenbahnzeiten jeweils mechanisch von einem Bremser zusätzlich gebremst worden sein könnten - mit dem "etwas" höheren Unfallrisiko aus diesen Zeiten. Wobei die Bremse eines Jeeps da sicher nicht überfordert gewesen wäre - einfach nur schlicht wirkungslos (soll kein Widerspruch zum Vorredner darstellen, nur eine Erweiterung), die Reibung Rad-Schiene vom Jeep dürfte um Längen unterhalb der Leistung der lächerlichen Trommelbremsen liegen, sprich die noch so schlechten Bremsen blockieren und der Zug fährt fröhlich weiter. Quietscht vielleicht ein bisschen. (Wer mal bei Nässe auf normalem Asphalt mit Tempo < 30 und einem ungebremsten 1000-Kilo-Anhänger (und 1000-Kilo-Zugfahrzeug) per Notbremsung zum Stillstand kommen wollte, der kennt einen Vorgeschmack. -- WikiMax - 14:11, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Again, my apologies for the English. The short answer to "how did they brake" is: they used engine braking extensively; they used the handbrakes, sometimes; they didn't go very fast; and they braked excruciatingly slowly...and, sometimes, they crashed anyway.

[[5]] gives a nice rundown of starting and stopping one of the "jeep trains" on the "jeep railway" in Burma; n.b. what term is -not- used in the article. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 02:50, 7. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Vielleicht kann man ja auch nochmals genauer herausfinden, wie schnell diese "Züge" wirklich fuhren. Der Abschnitt klingt sowieso etwas seltsam. Man kann sicherlich per Federstricht eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit "festsetzen". Aber eine Durchschnittsgeschwindigkeit ? Aber was ich eigentlich sagen will: Sowas wie komfortablen Sinuslauf scheint es ja nicht gegeben zu haben, also war jede Fahrt sowieso ein "Spurkranzgeklapper". Das noch viel mehr, falls wirklich nur das Lenkrad (-rad!) blockiert wurde, nicht aber die Lenkung selbst, womit noch geringes Spiel da gewesen wäre. Falls die Züge in Wahrheit oft noch langsamer fuhren, dann wurde halt so gut oder schlecht gebremst, wie es eben ging. (Der Vergleich mit dem 1000-Anhänger auf nassem Asphalt hinkt ja auch kräftig, schließlich geht es hier um die Schiene.) --93.200.246.45 07:54, 11. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Anhängelast #3

(Bin vorher/oben nicht mehr dazugekommen) Gibt es eine Quelle für "... Jeep, der von seinen Herstellern im Straßenbetrieb für Anhängelasten von 500 kg zugelassen war"? Für die Anhängelast müsste es Quellen geben. 500 kg sind mir zu rund (auch wenn gerundet in Ordnung wäre) im metrischen System. 1100 lb wären zwar auch durchaus möglich und nicht allzu unrund, aber Auflaufbremsen sollten auch schon damals nicht ungewöhnlich und folglich die Trennung nach gebremst und ungebremste Anhänger üblich gewesen sein. -- WikiMax - 14:11, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Die Quelle ist als Einzelnachweis am Ende des erwähnten Abschnitts eingefügt. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 07:52, 10. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Übersetzung

Neben der Frage nach den Bremsen ist auch einer Betrachtung wert, ob die Übersetzung geändert wurde. Nach [6] hatten die damaligen Modelle nicht mal eine Gelände-Untersetzung. --Slartibartfass (Diskussion) 15:40, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Sehe ich anders. Du kannst eher nicht von (fabrik)neuen Zivilversionen (CJ) ausgehen, sondern während des Krieges sowieso, im Rahmen des Militärs auch sowieso und auch allgemein eher von (später) ausrangierten oder zumindest alten Militär-Jeeps. Und die hatten ein Reduktionsgetriebe. => Willys MB -- WikiMax - 16:25, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Lemma falsch bezeichnet

Jeep Train oder Jeep-Zug wäre angebracht. Nicht so ein albernes Kofferwort. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 178.11.203.62 (Diskussion) 22:11, 5. Aug. 2015 (CEST))

Jeep-Train ist der ganze Zug, vorne ist eine Lokomotive, die eigentlich ein Jeep ist - das ergibt eine Jeepomotive, ein eher lustiges Wort. -- Ilja (Diskussion) 14:31, 6. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Dieses ist, weil es journalistische Humor, kein richtiges Wort. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 20:53, 6. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Eisenbahn-Draisine hat man auch aus anderen Autos gemacht, das ist nicht so ungewöhlich, aber damit auch Züge zu ziehen, das schon! Als Lemma wäre vielleicht auch Jeep-Train möglich, aber Jeepomotive drückt nun mal das aus, dass ein Jeep zur Lokomotive wurde und damit noch mehr zur Legende. Der VW-Käfer oder 2CV hat nach meinem Wissen nie einen Zug gezogen. Kofferwörter sind eigentlich immer bisschen albern, Kofferwort an und für sich natürlich auch :-) ! Davon lebt die Sprache und unser Sprachgefühl, zu Glück sind es mehr die Journalisten, als die Oberlehrer, welche die Sprache bilden. Und sie passen liebevoll aufeinder auf. -- Ilja (Diskussion) 04:37, 7. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Dear Benutzer:Anmccaff: The word "Jeepomotive" was mentioned in January 1945 in two articles. The reference to these articles should not be removed from the article, please. I can find several non-journalistic references, especially in the "Australian War Memorial". I fully understand that the word Jeepomotive sounds ridiculous for those who are not used to it. However, as in many cases the use of specific words varies between different countries, such as "boot" or "trunk" or "bonnet" or "hood". Therefore I do not see a need, to eradicate this word from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. This article should not be renamed to "Jeep Train", please, as it is an article about the word "Jeepomotive" and not about the Jeeps that pulled these trains. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 07:34, 10. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

The punning "nonce word"[[7]] "jeepomotive" was mentioned in 1944 [[8]] at least twice [[9]]. It is impossible, then, for it to have first been used in 1945. The fact that the word is used for a different meaning there is a bit of a clue that it is not a standard word; the fact that it has never been used since...until you came along, is another one. Wikipedia is not about promoting pet neologisms.

The australian war memorial has scores of references to "jeep train" -48, in fact- and 82 for "jeep" and "railway", and a considerable number of photos of the "train", skipping over the jeepoid ancestry.

BTW, if you actually look at the various jeep trains, you will discover that Fords are common, and there appears to have even been a Bantam.

There are a good 120 or thirty local (that is to say, Australian) articles describing the Borneo jeep trains available on trove; only one of them uses your pet term. Australians don't use this term. here are some Trove [[10]] searches: 228 for "jeep train" [[11]] and 73 for "rail jeep." [[12]], 38 for "railway jeep" 8 and 12 for "jeeptrain/jeep-train" Even counting duplication, and the occasional use of "jeep train" for a tractor tow of daisy-chained rubber wheeled jeeps across bad ground 9, "j--p-m-t-v-" is a vanishly rare term.

The Trove site, of course, also shows usage in '43 up until the 50s - jeep trains were used extensively in the Malayan Emergency. I suppose the use in '43 in Brisbane and '44 in Burma was time-travel. No one can invent something which has been in common use by the same group of people for a couple of years. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 19:10, 10. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

@Anmccaff: I think, your search engine plays a trick on you, when you enter "-wikipedia". Please check for instance the following web pages for the word that you don't like:

• AWM OG3138
• AWM OG3140
• AWM OG3136
• Newspaper
• and so on... --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 06:35, 11. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Those are already in the article, or were in the English version. What do you think they add here?

There is no "and so on." There are no other cites. Nonce word. Journalistic pun. Innapropriate for an encyclopedia.

Four little cites, at least three written, so to speak, in the same hand, against:

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/112941/ Jeep train...followed by a lot of "dittos" One just says "train." https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/112949/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/113281/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/113590/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/113590/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/121635/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/113590/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111814/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/123522/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111835/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111844/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111850/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111852/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111845/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/121632/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111810/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111811/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/113582/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/113607/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/OG3137/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/121630/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111846/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111851/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111854/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/113594/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/121369/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/OG3139/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/079312/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111939/

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111939/ Notice the date on this one; nearly 2 years ahead of its "invention" in 1945. Odd, that.

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/111813/ No particular name given at all to the jeep-as-locomotive, not even "jeep train" "A jeep fitted with special wheels."

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/121652/ Again, no particular name; the jeeply locomotive is simply a "jeep"

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/121370/ "jeep train", complete withscare quotes.

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/121370/ Jeep train.

Railway jeep" brings up some unique hits:

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/110684/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/122634/ "MODIFIED JEEPS" https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/122633/ https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/015479/ Again, note the date. 1943 Also, of course, note the nationality. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/110682/

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/124961/ Perhaps the piece de resistance; a photograph composed for creating a museum exhibition. They call it a ..."jeep." https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/124962/ Ditto.

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/124961/

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P03170.008/ Note the date, location, nationalities, and lack of silly names.

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P03170.008/ "jeep train" again, or rather "JEEP TRAIN"

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P03170.008/ (no photo linked.)

That's enough for today for me, but the preponderance from the "trove" news articles are even greater, IMS, with multiple variants of your cite, none of which vector "j--p-m-t-v-". Anmccaff (Diskussion) 09:18, 11. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Good stuff! Now we need a volunteer, to upload those public domain AWM photographs onto Wikimedia Commons, which aren't there yet. And no reference to Jeepomotives in the title of the uploads, please! ;-) --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 19:02, 11. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

First you should remove it from those photos where it is placed without sourcing...which is to say, all but three of them.Anmccaff (Diskussion) 08:06, 12. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Should we call it Jeep loco? Oh no, this is something else, and probably worth writing another article, if we can find a suitable photograph. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 19:13, 11. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

"Jeep train," if you want to emphasize that aspect, "rail(way) jeep" for all the applications. Plenty of good, reliable sources beyonf]dthe surface scratching here.Anmccaff (Diskussion) 08:06, 12. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Deletion?

Given that there are no serious reliable cites for this word, why should the artcle not be deleted, renamed, or rolled back into another article? Anmccaff (Diskussion) 16:30, 14. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

A very easy answer: Because it has been read 38405 times in the last 30 days, which would not have happened if we had called it Schienentaugliches Geländefahrzeug. Two of the readers preferred it to be renamed (these are you and 178.11.203.62) and the remainder did not complain at all. The citations are serious enough to stick to the current lemma, although undoubtedly others might be possible and admittantly more common (e.g. Jeep Train) in English. However, Jeepomotive is the most German sounding one, apart from Jeep-Zug, which is even less common. I don't think that it is unusual, to have different lemmas in different parts of the world. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 18:57, 14. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

It is far more important that an encyclopedic article be correct than it be "popular." BTW, how many of those views were for versions which contained complete falsehoods, like the locomotives running along the surf in the sand? (Or was that ony in the English version?) Telling a large number of people an untruth is not particularly meritorious.

• It was that version, wasn't it? Lets's see how many, frankly, lies were spread out that day when so many people looked at it, on the 5th:

America

The first written mention of the word Jeepomotive be found in a report on the US Army Major Earl Wiley, who has made ​​seemed suitable Jeep conversions. [4]

A falsehood, directly refuted by...you yourself, in the next sentence!

in 1944 published The Franklin Daily Star an article that described the reconstruction process, to the Coast Guard of the United States carried out in order to patrol the coasts better. [5]

See that 1944, and do you remember the newspaper cites showing publication in that year? Can't be "first" in '45, can it? More importantly, there , in all their glory, are your mythical locomotives plowing though the sand along the beaches.

 Australia
Demonstration by Australian and American soldiers on a narrow-gauge railway with 1000 mm track gauge in Eagle Farm Aerodrome in Brisbane (Australia) on 30 June 1943, the 1250 kg heavy jeep on railway wheels could easily pull a load of 10 tonnes, for use in Guinea was planned. [6]

No Australians were involved; this was a US demonstration, with US personnel, on a US base.

Australian soldiers built in Borneo between 1943 and 1945 several jeeps seemed fit to to the wartime shortage of locomotives for the local narrow-gauge railways to compensate. [7] The conversion was quite simple: The wheels were exchanged for common on the railroad steel wheels with wheel flange, rear a suitable coupling is fitted and the steering wheel was blocked. [8]

No Australians were in Borneo in 1943, except as internees, POWs, or spies or guerillas.

Great Britain
The British used for rail adapted jeeps during World War II, among others in France and Burma. Jeep trains were used by 1950 in India. [9]

The British not only used rail jeeps here, but also during the Malayan Emergency, but they had nothing going in 1950 India; the cite was a work -published- in 1950, about US use in Burma in 1944.

• Do you think that the readers were served well by being lied to like this?

There are no previous reliable cites for this word in German before you, are they? Then it should not be here. Wiki is not a place to announce new discoveries. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 19:42, 14. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

This is an English word, indeed, such as Computer, but it sounds most appropriate to describe this sort of railway vehicle in German. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 20:12, 14. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

No, it is -not- an English word, it is an English pun, a rather different thing. There are no reliable secondary cites that use this, and the handful of primary cites are almost certainly word-play. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 20:44, 14. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

No Original Work.

(In the German Wikipedia we prefer the phrase "Jeepomotive" = Jeep + Locomotive, although we know, that you and one other IP prefer to eradicate phrase from Wikipedia). Benutzer:NearEMPTiness

There are no German cites for Jeepomotive outside those you have induced. There are next to none in English, it is a pun, and used for other meanings.Anmccaff (Diskussion) 16:36, 24. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

I don't want to repeat myself, but this article is about Jeeps used as locomotives and not Jeeps with flanged steel wheels. The English word "Railway Jeep" does not make any sense in the German Wikipedia. The German word "Draisine" would be an appropriate word for a partrol Jeep without trailer(s). For a Jeep used as a locomotive, especially towing conventional railway wagons, "Jeepomotive" is and will continue to be the best description. This is, why I have chosen this word as a lemma, with only two of 38575 readers objecting to it. If you continue your WP:Edit-War/en:WP:Edit war, we might need to protect this page. "Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus." --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 19:10, 24. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

If I have understood the discussion page correctly, this part is about the title for the article ("Lemma"). If the article is to be called "Jeepomotive", then reliable sources have to be given which show that the thing described in the article was commonly called that way. Preferably in german sources, but if they do not exist or have not yet been found the common designation in English would be fine as well. As far as I can see, however, of the sources cited in the introduction only one uses the word "Jeepomotive", and that in a figure caption of a newspaper article and in quotation marks which I understand indication a scarce quote.

Therefore I think Anmccaff has raised a fair point. NearEMPTiness, your reasoning actually supports his point: "is the best desciption", "i have chosen the word" is not compliant with WP:Q. And the edit- counter, come on ...

If there is no proper special word for the thing, it is still only a jeep, and the article should be named something like "Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug)". If it is commonly called "Railway Jeep" in English, that would make a good article name. If "Jeep train" is commonly used in English, it could be used as an article name - the first sentence would have to be modified slightly, the article however could remain the same.

Since the both of you seem to have gone to quite a lot of sources, what is the most common name? Or isn't there any, so we have to resort to an article name with parenthesis? And please no reasoning along the lines od "makes most sense in German" oder "nobody has complained yet". --Marinebanker (Diskussion) 21:00, 24. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Again, my apologies for using English. The correct root phrase for an article on "jeep-as-locomotive" is "jeep train," and is heavily used in reliable sources such as military histories, biographies, etc. Terms for the jeep itself in particular were often ambiguous -"jeep", without any note of difference was common, "jeep with/on flanged wheels" is also, and particular descriptions based on the use it was put to "Jeep railmotor" "jeep inspection car" "jeep section car," and so forth. You do also see "railroad jeep," and "railway jeep," roughly divided by British vs North American usage, but that's a very rough guide. Americans and Canadians tended toward "railroad" for big steam roads, but often use "railway" for lighter systems like streetcars, interurbans, and the stuff you Allemenic guys call "feldbahns". "Rail jeep" is comprehensible to anyone," was used in the period in question, and disambiguates against use as a rubber-wheeled "tourist tram" such as [[13]].

"Draisine" is just about unheard of for these, except by Francophones: "draisines Blindees" (sp?) in Algeria and Indochina were almost always jeeps, if I recall correctly Anmccaff (Diskussion) 20:23, 25. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

In addition to the question of the lemma, the cites should not be mis-translated to use a near nonce-word, and the cites shoukd reflect due weight. An uncommon usage shoud not be magnified on Wiki. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 20:23, 25. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

So, how does de.wiki handle that sort of unconcious (?) vandalism that we are seeing here? He is clearly unclear on a good many of the rules for creating an article, and responds merely by edit-warring. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 19:16, 28. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Lemon Lemma?

(There are absolutely no German cites for Railway. Railway is english and will not be understood in german. Everyone understands Jeep and Lokomotive instead.) Benutzer:Capricorn4049

Yet there are well over 500 de.wiki articles with "railway" in the lemma. Odd, that. Perhaps you underestimate the readers here. Most are the stricter type of proper noun, like District_Railway, but others are quite similar to this, like Scenic_Railway or Light_Railway. Yes, I think you do underestimate the readers. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 08:18, 26. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

(Stop it... The lemma is Jeepomotive. We can not use different names for the same thing in one Article!) Benutzer:Capricorn4049

It is not the same thing. Is there any reliable indication that that particular jeep was used to haul freight wagons? Not from the source, certainly; it described it simply as a "jeep." Anmccaff (Diskussion) 08:18, 26. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Beyond that, the lemma selected is a violation of two major principles of wiki: it is original work -there are no reliable cites, anywhere, in any language, that claim "j--p-m-v-" is the usual name of the thing. Well, at least there weren't before this particular editor's "work." So, this is what wiki views as "original research." Next, the number of cites that use this is vanishingly small, and they are of very low quality. They appear to be journalistic puns, and not ones that caught on to become a regular nickname, like jeepney has. So, this gives undue weight to a minority usage. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 08:18, 26. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Well, Edit-warring will only lead to a temporary lock for the article. If you and Capricorn4049 cannot find a compromise or solution, then why don't you try to get a third opinion on the matter? Greetings from -- Iwesb (Diskussion) 08:33, 26. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

That seems to be the first step to bringing in some adult supervision, no? Anmccaff (Diskussion) 18:54, 28. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

I have double-checked the sources once more, and cannot see anything wrong with "Jeepomotive", although I fully appreciate that other words like "Jeep train" or "Rail Jeep" are more common in English. The latter words are not suitable for the German lemma. In German one might use "Schienentauglicher Jeep" but this would not be an improvement over "Jeepomotive". @Anmccaff I think that we both made our positions clear, and should not continue reverting each others contributions. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 19:39, 28. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

I checked the sources used in the article with respective to the name given to the “thingy”. Result:

• No. 1 (Australian War Memorial): Borneo jeep twice, once thereof in quotation marks. A jeep railway terminus in also mentioned, so there must have been a jeep railway.
• No. 2 (Newspaper “The Mercury”): Uses both jeeptrain and jeepomotive, the latter in quotation marks
• No. 3 (Nevington War museum): Jeep trainRailway jeeps
• No. 4 (Newspaper “Spartanburg Herald Journal”): jeep locomotive, jeepomotive in quotation marks
• No. 5: (Alumni magazine University Dayton): jeepomotive in quotation marks
• No. 6 (US army heritage page): jeep train in quotation marks
• No. 7 (non-descript web page): rail jeep
• No. 8 (Australian War Memorial): jeepomotive twice in quotation marks, jeep-train once
• No. 9 (kanadische(?) Jeep-Website): Jeep train

My, these are certainly high quality sources.
Albeit used several times, it seems "Jeepomotive" is word not really trusted by the people who used it in the sources, because everybody puts it into quotation mark. Unless somebody finds a standard reference which calls the thing jeepomotive, I would rather not use it as the article name (the "Lemma", as we call it in German WP).
NearEMPTiness, you came to the conclusion (how?) that "I agrre wiJeep train" oder "Rail Jeep" are more common. Could you briefly explain why you think tehse words are unsuitable? It can not be the fact that ist is Englisch.
The default soultion would be "Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug)". Because it is still a jeep. And, if there is no definite name fpr it, we will have to call it "Jeep", with the addition in paranthesis for disambiguation - in accordance to out naming convention.
Regards --Marinebanker (Diskussion) 21:07, 28. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Dear Marinebanker: Thank you for your help on finding a solution. I actually like "Jeep train", because it refers to Jeeps used as locomotives. However, some of the Jeeps were just used as draisines, which the Americans call speeders. With "Rail Jeep" it appears to be the other way round, i.e. these are mainly used without trailers or waggons. The term "Jeepomotive" describes the dual use better than any other word. And in German it reminds the user on "Jeep" and "Lokomotive", i.e. the plural would be "Jeepomotiven" instead of "Jeepomotives". Locomotives can be used with and without waggons, and therefore they cover also those Rail Jeeps without trailers.

Anmccaff did a very good job in cleaning up some misinterpretations of some of the sources that I cited in the English as well as the German article. However, he was a bit overzealous by deleting words that he is not used to, including even the references. I never doubted that alternatives to Jeepomotive could be used, however, I personally think that "Jeepomotive" is the most descriptive word. Talking about a "Jeep with flanged wheels" would not be an improvement, because 38728 users would search for "Jeepomotive", if they wanted to read the article again, and not any other, in my opinion less decriptive words. I think we should stick to the lemma under which the article was originally published, instead of using any other less descriptive terms, even if they are more common in some parts of the world, as can be proven by the number of Google hits. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 00:26, 29. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

@NearEMPTiness: Your comment regarding the most descriptive word seems to me as a very bad idea. It is not advisable to generate such a name (this would be WP:Begriffsetablierung). We have to find the most common name within the available sources. Only if such a common name is not available, then we could start thinking about an artificial lemma and in that case the lemma is usually descriptive (cp the beforementioned "Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug)", due to it being basically a Jeep, used as a vehicle on rails). To "refind" the article we always can use redirects if necessary (at least the word "jeepomotive" is used in the sources). Greetings -- Iwesb (Diskussion) 06:27, 29. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

I agree completely with Iwesb 's point of view.

Also, NearEMPTiness's objection to "jeep train" is valid. I checked two or three dictionaries, and "train" clearly means carriage(s) and perhaps an engine together, therefore a single jeep cannot be a train. This squares with most of the sources in the article, apart from citation No. 9, which says "...to convert a Jeep into a train.", clearly linguistic nonsense. Well, they are not all professional writers. So Jeep train would only appropirate for an article describing a jeep hauling at least one trailer.

That would leave "Rail Jeep" (or "Railway Jeep"?) as the most common names in the web, according to NearEMPTiness. Or alternatively "Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug)". And no, "Rail(way) Jeep" does not imply a jeep without a train, it implies a Jeep on railway tracks. --Marinebanker (Diskussion) 15:47, 30. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Aber wir sind hier in der deutschen Wikipedia und sollten auch deutsche Wörter verwenden. Daher ist meiner Meinung nach sowohl "Rail(way) Jeep" wie auch "Jeep Train" ungeeignet. Wennschon müsste man es mit "Eisenbahnjeep" oder "Schienenjeep" übersetzen. Aber das wäre auch wieder WP:Begriffsetablierung. Jeepomotive ist zwar vielleicht ein Wortwitz, hat jedoch den Vorteil, dass es jeder deutschsprechende sofort versteht. --Capricorn4049 (Diskussion) 17:16, 31. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Danke, für die Unterstützung, lieber Benutzer:Capricorn4049. Ich habe "Jeepomotive" gewählt, weil es gut belegt und leicht verständlich ist. Für die englischsprachige Wikipedia halte ich "Jeep train" inzwischen für besser geeignet, aber das ist in deutschen Texten vollkommen unbelegt. "Schienentauglicher Jeep" wäre eine mögliche deutschsprachige Alternative, analog zu "Schienentauglicher Unimog" --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 19:19, 31. Aug. 2015 (CEST)

Häh? Du meinst, wir sollten deutsche Wörter verwenden wie Docklands Light Railway, Cash-and-Carry-Arbitrage, Browning Automatic Rifle oder auch Gendarmerie nationale? Oder Physalis angulata? Wer kommt den auf solche Gedanken und worauf stützt der sich?

Ich bin ob dieser Meinungsäußerung fassungslos, will aber nicht ausschließen, dass ich sie falsch verstehe.

Google findet für "Jeepomotive" ca. 400 Stellen, "Railway Jeep" auch nur ca. 2.390, "Rail Jeep" ca. 960. Finde ich alles nicht viel. Die beiden letzten werden aber zumindest in den im Artikel verwendeten Quellen dauernd in Anführungszeichen gesetzt.

Nochmal: Es kommt auf die übliche Bezeichnung in der Literatur an, und so lange es nur englische Literatur gibt, nimmt man den englischen Namen. Udn suchen uns nicht einen aus, weil wir mutmaßen, dass er auch aus Sicht der deutschen Sprache sich gut erschließt. Englischsprachige Bezeichnungen sind ja bei Dingen die aus dem angelsächsichen Sprachraum stammen nicht unüblich. Wenn der einzige Anhaltspunkt, den wir für die Häufigkeit haben, alelrdings Google ist, würde ich zu Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug) tendieren. --Marinebanker (Diskussion) 21:29, 2. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

I think it is worth noting that of the 400-odd google web hits, 390-odd come from Wikipedia itself, directly or indirectly. There are only 9 contemporaneous uses of the word, none in secondary sources, and only one modern secondary use, from a jeep fan website. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 19:46, 3. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

@Anmccaff: Thank you for this analysis. I personally think 9 + 1 + 1 = 11 references of Jeepomotive are sufficient to keep the existing lemma. I do not like "Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug)" because it is a more or less permanently converted Jeep. I have only seen one photograph, where a Jeepomotive transports its own four rubber tires on the vehicle itself. So far, I am not convinced that the considered alternatives would be better lemmas, therefore I propose to keep the existing lemma Jeepomotive. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 05:07, 4. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

@Marinebanker Angenommen wir nehmen "Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug)": Wie sähe denn dann der erste Satz aus? "Ein als Schienenfahrzeug genutzter Jeep ist ein umgebauter Jeep mit Eisenbahnrädern, der als Lokomotive oder Draisine genutzt wird." Oder: "Ein Jeep kann auch als Lokomotive oder Draisine genutzt werden, indem Eisenbahnräder angebracht werden. Insbesondere während des zweiten Weltkriegs wurden schienentauglich umgebaute Jeeps als Jeep train, Rail Jeep oder Jeepomotive verwendet." Vielleicht stehe ich ja auf dem Schlauch. Oder es ist tatsächlich so, dass wir am besten den ganzen Artikel in den Artikel Jeep importieren, so wie wir keinen Unterschied machen, ob Sommerräder oder Winterräder auf dem Jeep anmontiert sind. Nur um klar zu machen, eine Verschiebung in den Artikel Jeep, finde ich nicht erstrebenswert! --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 05:20, 4. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

Da das dann ein "beschreibendes" Lemma ist, brauchts keine einleitende Definition. Vielleicht so (links etc spar ich mir mal): Während des Zweiten Weltkriegs wurden Jeeps zu Lokomotiven oder Draisinen umgebaut, weil die Straßen in den Kriegsgebieten vielerorts unpassierbar waren und es oft zu wenige Lokomotiven gab. -- Iwesb (Diskussion) 05:35, 4. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

One of the real problems with this horrible lemma is that it leads to tendentious searches, with inaccuracies resulting. The majority of uses had nothing to do with impassible roads, nor with shortages of locomotives, but with repair of track, bridges, and other maintenance-of-way. A road could be put in condition to handle light locomotives much easier and faster. Again, the tendentious lemma also leads to focus on Australia, but the biggest use, by far, of "jeep trains" was in Burma, involving mostly Americans and Britons. This bastardized pun "j--p-m-t-v-" has no place in an encyclopedia.Anmccaff (Diskussion) 04:19, 6. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

I perceive that you have an objection to the use of Australian English and British English, although these languages may be used equally as American or Standard English. There is no need to eradicate the word Jeepomotive only because you are not used it. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 06:27, 6. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

No. The cites you provided showed two uses in American English, and one in Australian English, and none in British English. The Australian cites are all written in the same voice, almost certainly by the same author, as are both US articles about the Coast Guard's use of a stretch jeep -that led you to fantasise about trains running in the surf, and to vector that fantasy to thousands of hapless readers, and both articles about US use in the Philipines. This reflects three press releases, more than likely, and such things were -no, are- a staple of military public affairs offices.

Next, this is not "unfamiliar," it's an obvious pun and portmanteau word in any variety of English. What it is not is an actual name or nickname, unlike, say, Jeepney. It has no contemporaneous secondary cites to back it. None. It has one modern secondary cite, a single mention on a jeep fan's website. This is neither an English nor a German word. It does not belong in anything with pretense to be an encyclopedia. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 07:29, 6. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

Thank you for the clarification. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 07:47, 6. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

@NearEMPTiness: What are the 9+1+1 cites for "jeepomotive" you mentioned earlier? Are you refering to Anmccaff's count? But what are they?

I do not really trust Google Searches, my point was that none of these words seem to be very common. For that reason, I did not further break down the numbers to e. g. exclude Wikipedia and Wikipedia clones.

We do not use just any source to find a name for an article. So may I aske once again: Has anybody at least any one reliable, WP:Q-compliant source for either of the designations used so far? Like, for example a standard textbook about military vehicles of WWII? If not, the obvious and in my opinon the only allowed choice would be "Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug)" or the like.

As for the question about the first sentence in that case, I think Iwesbhas answered that satisfactorily.

So, to come to a conclusion (or at least to exclusions), can anybody bring forward reliable sources? Sorry I cannot help in that respect, and do not know the related literature.

Thank you --Marinebanker (Diskussion) 21:00, 6. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

Yes, I agree with Anmccaff's count of 9+1+1 cites for "Jeepomotive". However, I cannot agree to his conclusion that this would not be sufficient for choosing the Lemma. The article has been read approximately 40.000 times by now, and I am pretty convinced that nobody would have bothered if it had been called Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug). Thus, I fully agree that we should now wait until we get some reliable sources. --NearEMPTiness (Diskussion) 22:36, 6. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

Objection. Since IMO the current lemma is WP:Begriffsetablierung (establishing a name), the longer we wait, the more this name will spread over the internet (self-fulfilling prophecy). I recommend to

• move the article to Jeep (Schienenfahrzeug)
• keep the redirection
• change the introduction to (according to current rules we have to mention any redirect-lemma in the intro):

Während des Zweiten Weltkriegs wurden Jeeps zu Lokomotiven oder Draisinen umgebaut, weil die Straßen in den Kriegsgebieten vielerorts unpassierbar waren und es oft zu wenige Lokomotiven gab. Diese Umbauten werden teilweise auch mit dem Kofferwort Jeepomotive bezeichnet.

Jeeptrain. The Mercury, Hobart, Tasmania, Monday, 3 September 1945.

Nevington War Museum: USA - Jeep Variants - Railway Jeeps.

Herald-Journal, 20. Januar 1945.

@NearEmptyness: The number of readers of an article cannot be a valid argument for the lemma. Most readers followed the Link on the WP main page (and if the lemma at that time would have been grxyl, they would have followed even that). There is no means to get the number of readers that did search for Jeepomotive. Greetings from -- Iwesb (Diskussion) 02:37, 7. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

Three points. The name used for these by most English speakers -who were, in turn, the majority of users - was "rail Jeep" for the jeep-on-flanged-wheels and "jeep train" for the assembly. There were, of course the occasional wise-ass or two who made up silly names; in addition to j--p-m-t-ve, we have about 6-10 uses of "locomojeep", all written by the same person, in nearly identical articles sold to various related railroad trade, professional, or union magazines, and one unfortunate case conflated the jeep train with the jeepney, claiming that a jeep pulling railcars was a "jeepnese." We have "jeep railway", and we have all of these used with hyphens. The term "rail jeep" or "jeep train" shows up on the trove site regarding US use in Burma in 1944, in one of the same newspapers which claimed "invention" in Borneo in '45. It shows up in the definitive US CBI history, (wm.) Boyd Sinclair's Confusion Beyond Imagination, detailing the use in India in '43, and putting the lie to the idea that the main reason for use on Burma was impassible roads: it clearly states the reason was to allow operation on marginal infrastructure. A lightweight locomotive could work on damaged track and questionable bridges with far less need for repair. The unit histories of the British 36th division uses "jeep train." Most biographies of Mountbatten do as well. Hell, Lok-Magazin uses "rail jeep" in 2008, and there is a Dutch usage from '49. "Rail jeep" as a single phrase, intermediately transliterated parenthetically, would be a fine lemma.

Next, I agree that squashing this before it creates sites based entirely on this wiki article would be a good thing, and the 36,000 odd people who saw it as a "Did You Know" would be better served by an apology than a redirect. The article was not fit for publication at that point.

Finally, again, my thanks for putting up with a foreign language here. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 07:24, 7. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

Anmccaff brought up the only source which looks reliable: Confusion beyond imagination : China-Burma-India in World War II : in a series of ten books / by William Boyd Sinclair. I admit I do not know it, I have only looked it up in the Library of Congress Onsite Catalog. I understand that according to this source, we have the choice between "Jeep Train" and "Rail Jeep", and I would prefer the latter (because we do not want to descibe the "train", but the mover. The article could however easily changed to describing the train).

There's a copy in a library in Munich (which, unless a strong ILL program is available to you, might as well be on the moon) and, if you have a strong academic connection, you might be able to see the University of Wisconsin's copy through Hathitrust. Speaking of which, Hathitrust has several relevant articles. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112106755017;view=1up;seq=21 covers US use in Burma of the "Jeep Train." http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112105093154;view=1up;seq=96 has the 36th division's local operation described, from a parochial point of view. http://www.colonialfilm.org.uk/node/3279 gives a nice view of later use in the Malaya Emergency, and, as I mentioned A. G. A. Bollee's "Hij Rijdt Weer" (s'Gravenhage W. van Hoeve, [1949]), which might be more accessible in your neck-of-the-woods, covers the "Dubbele rail-jeep" in the re-establishment of rail service in (Dutch) Borneo.

Obviously, a real problem here is that decent cites will be inaccessible online, especially given search engines' geographic tailoring of results. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 21:55, 9. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

PS: http://railway.sabah.gov.my/?s=rail+jeep here is the Sabah State Railways's own modern take on it. "Reel Jeep" (sic) shows up sometimes; the etymology is pretty straightforward. The inspection cars still in use seem to be "railjeeps," both in name and origin, jeep frames dressed in new sheet metal. http://hantulautan.blogspot.com/2008/10/reminiscencethe-north-borneo-railway.html gives another local perspective. Wikimedia -not a reliable source itself, of course, gives several picures of modern sabah railjeeps e.g. [[14]]. Anmccaff (Diskussion) 00:06, 10. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

I we cannot agree on that, we should follow Iwesb's proposal (renaming the page and I agree with changing the introduction as proposed).

Nobody has brought uo a reliable source for jeepomotive.

NearEMPTiness, Du bist doch lange genug dabei, um unsere Richtlinien für TF und Belege zu kennen (und deren Sinn zu kennen). War es nötig, dass offensichtlich unbrauchbare Argument mit den Lesern noch einmal zu bringen? --Marinebanker (Diskussion) 19:16, 9. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

Umbenennung

Wow!! Diese Umbenennung war jetzt wohl ein Bisschen vorschnell.. nicht? Sollte nicht zuerst Konsens gefunden werden? Ich finde das war jetzt echt noch nicht zu Ende diskutiert. Und vor allem ist das Lemma wie es jetzt ist echt schlecht und in der Diskussion auch nie so vorgeschlagen worden. @Anmccaff: Dein Benehmen und deine Vorgehensweise ist gelinde gesagt unter aller Sau. Du bist mir nicht nur hier, sondern auch bereits in Commons mit ähnlichem, klar regelwidrigem Verhalten aufgefallen. Bitte überdenke dein Verhalten und versuch in Zukunft solche vorschnelle, trollartige Aktionen zu unterlassen. --Capricorn4049 (Diskussion) 05:49, 8. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

Das Klammerlemma war auf jeden Fall verquer, deshalb zurück. --ahz (Diskussion) 08:38, 8. Sep. 2015 (CEST)