Talk:Nazi gold train

Too early?

I think it's too early to create an article on this topic, since so far nothing has been discovered except some radar images. It deserves little more than a brief mention at the Nazi gold page, perhaps in an expanded section on the gold caches (some of which have been found). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's too early given sources and ground penetrating radar confirmation of the train's existence. No matter what they find (gold or not) this will be a historic discovery. The train itself will be a historic artifact. A question is if this the gold train of historic purport, or a different (gold) train. Right now the sources all call it the gold train everyone has been searching for 80 years, so we go with that, but it may take on a different name in time if they find, say, cars full of wheat. That possibility is why I added the "so-called" since we don't know yet if it's a gold train. -- GreenC 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the sources seem sufficient for an article now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There's an interview on BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p031gh14) saying that local legend was of a weapons train rather than a gold train - hints of Hitler's nuke programme and similar. LeapUK (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'Gold Train' link

Links to a minimal article on 'Money Train' (used for collecting takings or distributing wages on a Metro system) which has no relevance to this article 217.38.87.187 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Train graveyard"

An editor keeps adding a wikilink connecting the supposedly buried train to the article train graveyard. I have explained, in edit summaries and on their talk page, that burying a train (if that is what happened) is not the same thing as a "train graveyard", a place where out-of-date rail equipment is put when it is taken out of service, and that the use of "graveyard" in the expression is purely metaphorical, and not literal, but the editor doesn't seem to be getting it.

I offer this thread as a place for the editor to express their viewpoint, and for other editors to comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To quote from the article Train graveyard: "A train graveyard is where trains and rolling stock are left to decay." Burying a train to hide it is an entirely different action, with an entirely different motivation, making the link inappropriate. It's as if I linked the statement "Television is where old playwrights go to die" to the article Death. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, a train (which may consist of several vehicles) is possibly buried somewhere. That sounds like a graveyard to me. That article includes a link to this one so I consider it relevant to link from here to there. At no point have I suggested a lengthy addition, just a link that some people may find useful. I don't understand how such a link could be seen as detrimental to this article. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And I know what the article says - I wrote it. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Good for you.

It could be a train's grave, but it's not a train graveyard, no matter what it sounds like to you - you do understand what a metaphor is, right? It's detrimental, because we are an encyclopedia and should not be implying something that's not true. If you want to add train graveyard to the "See also" section, that's fine with me -- in fact, I'll do it myself now, if that will stop this silliness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You're nowhere near convincing me. You don't know if anything is there or if numerous carriages are buried. By saying that it has a place in the See also section you are implying a greater link than I did. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you're starting an edit war there? Not good discussion technique. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if is buried, or how much equipment is buried, it's not a place where outdated equipment goes to rust and "die" (again, a metaphor, not meant literally), which is what a "train graveyard" is, it's a train that was (possibly) buried so as to be hidden. Not the same thing at all.

Please provide a source that calls the burial place of the supposed train(s) a "train graveyard", as opposed to, say, a train's grave. And please answer my question above: do you understand what a metaphor is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's rusting and dying if it exists. It qualifies. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"A train graveyard is where trains and rolling stock are left to decay". It doesn't say anything about why they've been left. This is relevant here and in the train graveyard article. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source associating this train as a train graveyard then it shouldn't be included in Train_graveyard#Rumoured_locations. This is known as original research WP:OR which is an "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". You have analyzed the source, reached a conclusion it is train graveyard, yet the sources say no such thing. It is purely your own synthesis and conclusion. -- GreenC 16:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a definition of "train graveyard" but looking at the words separately it's pretty obvious that this counts if it exists. violet/riga _^[talk] 16:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's obvious you should have no trouble providing a source. It's not hard to show the terms usage in context. -- GreenC 16:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

..and I don't think it is obvious. While one can make the term "trainyard graveyard" an umbrella to cover any train buried, the term is not usually (or ever) used in that sense, it has a more specific meaning, as sources show. In the end, it's not what you think, it's what the sources say/show. Otherwise it is an original interpretation. -- GreenC 16:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Likewise, if your definition of "train graveyard" stands up then I look forward to seeing your sources. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The burden is on you to show the definition is supportable in reliable sources. A dictionary definition would be nice, but is not required. Simply show the term used somewhere in the context of a buried train. This is how lexicography and etymology work, how professionals create definitions. Otherwise it is just making stuff up. -- GreenC 20:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Nazi gold train

An RfC has been started at Talk:Train_graveyard#RfC:_Nazi_gold_train. -- GreenC 18:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

How did that train get out of Breslau?

Breslau was completely encircled by soviet armored divisions since at least Feb. 13-14, 1945. Civilians and soldiers were unable to escape, and German divisions from the Berlin area were unable to reach the city. By early in May, the soviets had taken the outer perimeter of the city and its airport. How could a slow moving gold train possibly sneak thru the perimeter and traverse ~80 kilometers of Soviet held territory to Waldenberg, then in Soviet hands and not end up captured? The train line out of Breslau wasn't underground - only a few kilometers near Waldenburg was underground. Breslau was an isolated pocket of German resistance for nearly the whole three months. Berlin was completely encircled by mid-April. The remainder of Silesia to the west had been in allied hands for months. There was nowhere remaining in German hands for that train to go. Sbalfour (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The article talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussing the subject, it is meant to discuss changes to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)