Talk:BR Standard Class 8/Archive 1

I don't understand this.

First I expand a stub into a nice little story about a steam engine. Then someone removes links to its designer and the location (a bit like removing "R.J.Mitchell" and "Aircraft Museums" from an article about Spitfires).

To Duncharris: If you don't like the links - don't click on them. Somebody from outside the hobby might just want to go and see their first steam loco (or maybe buy a ticket to ride :-)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. The Riddles link is relevant to the Riddles article. It is of secondary relevance to the locomotive artice. I think that what Duncharris was driving at was that readers wanting more info on Riddles should click on the Riddles link; and, presumably, the best place for the external link to Riddles would be on that page. As for the steam tours link, I checked it just now, and could not find any obvious information about the DofG. And so, like Duncharris, I'd bin that one too. I'm not at all persuaded that the DofG article should act as an advert for a steam tours website, though I would support a link to that website on a more general page about preserved railways or train preservation. In short, links need to be highly relevant to the article's subject, not merely somehow related. I note, incidently, that the two main IPs maintaining this page have not been using edit comments, and would ask you to remember to do so. It makes looking at the history that much more useful. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thinking about it, I agree there is sense in what you say. Let me have a little think first, then I'll probably move the links for 'Riddles' and "Steam Tours" to more relevant pages. Any comments about the article? Any mistakes? Maybe a bit too long? See if you can make it a bit more concise for me, cos I can waffle sometimes :-) I'm just a bit biased because I have grazed my knuckles a few times on The Duke's greasy bits. Perhaps I am too much of an enthusiast for this machine to be NPOV?. ChrisRed

The article is good - kudos to you. And it is by & large NPOV, I think. Certainly I have no objections to any of it and enjoyed reading it. It is certainly not over-long nor waffley. I do not much like the steam tours link going inline within the article ... if you can be bothered, do a page on mainline steam travel, with at least a paragraph; put the link on that page, and link from DofG to that page. In general, links should be in the external link section, not in the article. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Fair enough, and thanks for the flowers :-) I'll make the changes when I have time, unless you want to do it (you've obviously been at this longer than I have). I'll try and think of a way of doing a mainline steam travel page without it being an advert. Seems that I would either need to mention NO operator or ALL of them !!. Anyway, I'll 'walk away' from The Duke article now and see how it 'mellows' over time.ChrisRed 09:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snag a better photo of the engine, if you can. No-one will spot the valve gear amongst the gloom :) And if you have access, get some photos of components & such. There are many railway articles which IMO could bear tangential photos of railwayania, such as Rail terminology --Tagishsimon (talk)

I found a picture of The Duke as most people would remember it from BR Days. Trundling into Crewe from the Chester line.ChrisRed 11:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - keep going. I hope you choose to add to other wikipedia articles & donate more photos ... you clearly have stuff you can add. Get explaining the principles of steam locomotion, for instance. Go mad! --Tagishsimon (talk)

Er, can we be sure of the copyright status of the 1962 photo, do we have explicit permission? I tried to ask that guy before and got ignored. Dunc|☺ 19:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be an army of people who seem to do nothing else than cruise articles posting 'are you sure we can use the photo'. A bit like when I was a radio ham and some people used to do nothing else than break into people's conversations to criticise someone's audio. If you read the website, the guy says 'feel free to use the photos as you please'. To my mind if you post anything on the internet, it instantly becomes public domain. For example: I won't throw a girly strop if my entire 'Duke' article turns up somewhere else quoted verbatim.ChrisRed 19:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but people do throw "girly strops", if you steal their copyrighted work. I've seen it hapen. Can you point directly to where it says 'feel free to use the photos as you please', please. And if those photos are free then I'm having a few more of them! Dunc|☺ 20:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://britishrailways.tripod.com ChrisRed 20:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that's enough from me. I'll leave you all to pick the nits. Nothing personal, it's just that I usually avoid UK-based web groups etc like the plague for this reason. 'Bye all - I'm writing something else now.ChrisRed 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the photo is unfortunately a copyright violation because those photos are by John Griffiths, whereas the 1962 Duke photos are by Ron Healey and has been taken from a totally different website. Dunc|☺ 22:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you though Chris for finding those photos, because they're all going in somewhere! Yippee! Dunc|☺ 22:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have since located a very good close-up side-on SLR/tripod shot of The Duke's valve gear from my own collection, taken by me at Carnforth. I will add it to the article when I can use the posh scanner at work.ChrisRed 22:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Mr Healey pops up and asks me to delete his (credited!!) photo, then I will do so, but please don't simply axe other peoples work because of your personal interpretation of the copyright issue. (ChrisRed)

To: Bobblewik. I am not 'madly in love' with the metric conversions for a British 'thing' built in 1954, but I realise that I am now well stricken in years, and younger people 'think metric'. I still find the idea of a 1.5 Megawatt steam engine very odd, though. Have you added them for the benefit of the young, or are we in 'Pounds per square inch' to 'Euros per square centimetre' country?. :-) The S.I. equivalents are meaningless to 'railway' types, (unless you are talking about a continental electric loco) and frankly look rather silly.ChrisRed 12:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I forgot to thank Bobblewik for doing the maths. I hope you agree with where I have put the equivalents.

E-mail sent to Ron Healey (I think it's the same one) requesting permission for use of 1962 photo. (He's in NZ now) ChrisRed 14:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The units ought to be imperial since the engine was built in imperial, but they should also be given afterwards in metric for those unfamiliar with imperial units. I agree it does look a bit silly, but I do think we have a policy on it, somewhere - try Wikipedia:Units. Dunc|☺ 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe a little table of equivalents at the bottom would be a good idea (in case anybody from Euroland drops in). It's way beyond my ability as a Wikivirgin :-). Maybe you could oblige??. BTW, does anybody know how long the 1/75 part of Shap Bank is? In some places it says four miles, others five.ChrisRed 19:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC) p.s. Clever stuff on the photo, by the way.[reply]

Metric values issue 'sorted'. Information needlessly duplicates data on The Duke of Gloucester website, which is more likely to be updated in 'real time' as development progresses (ChrisRed).

Nice one, Dunc. ChrisRed