Talk:Missouri Pacific Railroad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Copyrights
As noted, this is an edited version of the Screaming Eagles article. which is free for non-profit used. He seems to have based some of it on Encyclopedia Brittanica. I think I have removed all the similarities I noticed, but I don't have a subscription to the Brittanica, so I may have missed some of it.
- For reference, this is the page http://mo-pac.com/about.html Where did you find that this is public material? Are you sure we are allowed to release this material under the GNU Free Documentation License? Note that the GFDL allows commercial redistribution!
Sander123 14:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The webmaster of that site says everything not otherwise credited is his own work, and is free for non-profit use: http://mo-pac.com/copyright.html
- (first of all, as an aside, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment so we don't have to go through the history for a timestamp and to see who is talking where; AdThanksVance) slambo 23:48, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- And that's where one potential problem arises, because that doesn't fully answer the question. The GFDL, as mentioned earlier, allows for-profit (commercial) redistribution. As the article stands, is Wikipedia legally able to republish this work? The bottom of every edit page explicitly states "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License" which, states [1]:
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
- Just got a response from the webmaster at Screaming Eagles:
Sean, your Missouri Pacific article as it is published on Wikipedia has my blessing. Thanks for asking! Best regards, Todd Greuter, mo-pac.com
- Just got a response from the webmaster at Screaming Eagles:
[edit] Reporting marks
What is the Wiki convention in showing U.S. railroad reporting marks, with regard to use of ampersand (&) ? On the Missouri Pacific page, I note KO&G and C&EI, but T&P is shown by its much later reporting mark of TP, and SLIMS has no close relationship with the actual STLIM&S reporting marks used by the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern. While current AAR practice is to disallow the use of an ampersand in reporting marks, the use of that symbol was a standard part of reporting marks until the 1960s. There are other examples not pertinent to Missouri Pacific.... CAGY versus C&G for Columbus & Greenville Railroad, for example. Thanks for clarification.RI-Bill 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rollback abbreviated name
I've never seen "Mop" used to describe the railroad in any reference, nor have I heard it in my years of research. While it does seem plausible, it is by no means common enough to include it in the common abbreviations sentence at the beginning of the article. If you want to add this abbreviation, please cite a credible reference that uses it. Slambo (Speak) 18:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mop or MoP as abbreviated name for Missouri Pacific
Mop was a very common shorthand designation for Missouri Pacific, used in both speech and written documents. The term was frequently seen in Missouri Pacific's employee magazine in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as being discussed in some detail in Boomer Bill, His Book, by I.M. Brown. The 1930s discussion of the MoP terminology suggested that it originated with the then obsolete 'Mo.P.' reporting marks formerly used on freight cars before the more recent 'MP' reporting marks were adopted. RI-Bill 04:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)