User talk:8474tim
|
Talk page discussions
[edit]Hi Tim; I have spotted most (I think) of your talk page comments, and have replied to some. I see a theme here: the problem is, different books disagree on what constituted Joseph and George Armstrong's responsibilities, and thus, also disagree on which loco classes each should be credited with.
One (rather extreme) school of thought holds that since "technically", Wolverhampton was subservient to Swindon, then all loco designs produced at Wpn when George A. was in charge there, should really be credited to Gooch, Joseph A. or Dean, being the loco superintendents who were ultimately responsible.
If loco classes are missing from lists, this either means that the person(s) preparing the list were not aware of them, or couldn't find a reliable source. Several locos built for the GWR after the departure of Gooch, but before the arrival of Churchward, are not easily placed in classes because they were built in such small numbers. Consider the standard-gauge 2-2-2 locos; the book
- Tabor, F.J. (1956). White, D.E. (ed.). The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, part four: Six-wheeled Tender Engines. Kenilworth: RCTS.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
has these in one chapter, divided into eight sections; but this does not mean eight classes. Some sections (such as that for the 3001 class) are clearly defined, but others (such as the section titled "Early Wolverhampton Singles", which covers locos nos 7,8,30,110), are somewhat miscellaneous.
It can be hard for a newcomer to take, but Wikipedia depends upon verifiability, not truth - for a loco class to be attributed to a given person, we need a reliable source which states that as fact, and must also reference the statement in the Wikipedia page. So, gather your sources, and where there is disgreement, weigh one against the other. If you have questions, leave a message (see box at top of this page) whenever you like.
One last thing: it's not a good idea to put your email address in talk page comments - on Wikipedia we communicate 99.99% of the time via talk pages such as this one, also those you have already edited. If you leave a question somewhere, it's best to "watch" the page so that you'll find out quickly when a reply has been left. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Armstrongs
[edit]Dear (Red)rose 64, Thank you for your mail and connected work on the articles whewre I had queries.
I accept what you say about the question of attribution resulting from the unusual relationship of Swindon and Wolverhampton works, however I have read many books on the GWR over the years and have always seen the post-1854 Wolverampton classes attributed to George not Joseph - including for example the 517 class O-4-2T which is famous for having been the model for Collet's 1400 class renewal of the 1930s. No doubt Joseph left his brother a free hand as compensation for the fact that he appointed dean, not George, as his assistant at Swindon.
I also agree that, with so many small classes (which were often much rebuilt each time they went in for repair), it is impossible to provide full details in a work like Wikipedia.
I see that someone - you? - has started work on the biographical article on Joseph. Thanks for that. I would like to continue this, with your approval, and also complete the one for George. After that I will try and sort out the most important of the two mens' locomotive classes, to make all the other relevant articles consistent.
Could I ask for one point of guidance? Is it possible to cite internet sites as reference, either alone or in con junction with printed sources? For example, in the case of the Armstrongs there is a good website
https://steamindex.com/people/armstron.htm
which is taken mainly from the standard work
H. Holcroft, the Locomotives of the Great Western Railway (1953)
and also contains Joseph Armstrong's evidence to the gauge enquiry.
This seems worth citing as a reference since it is so instantly accessible.
By the way, I do have some knowledge of dictionary work and bibliography, having worked in publishing as an editor, on Grove's Dictionary of Music. I am a musician by training, but am a lifelong steam railway enthusiast.
Thanks again
8474tim (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have for some years been firmly of the opinion that the loco classes built at Wolverhampton between the resignation of Gooch and the arrival of Dean were in fact the work of George, not Joseph; and that George continued in similar vein under Dean. A major problem is that a number of books just say "Armstrong", without stating which of the two is meant, so the main issue is one of synthesis. If source (a) says that the 517 class was built at Wolverhampton between 1868 and 1885, and was designed by Armstrong (without giving a first name), and source (b) says that George was in charge at Wolverhampton between 1864 and 1892, we cannot put the two together and say that George was the designer of the 517 class. What we need is source (c) that directly states that fact.
- I have indeed significantly expanded Joseph's page, and I left it by no means complete; I wanted to tackle the career in general terms, without mentioning locomotives; and then cover the locomotives in greater detail. I started the career part by covering Joseph's arrival on the S&CR up to the point where he moved to Swindon, the next part would be from then until his death; then I would have inserted the pre-S&CR details. Having tackled Joseph, I was then going to cover George in similar fashion; and after that, we can set about fixing up Locomotives of the Great Western Railway. This apparently backwards order is because although Locomotives of the Great Western Railway has almost all of the errors, it's supposed to be a summary article, with the two Armstrong articles having greater detail; and finally the loco class articles (such as GWR 517 Class) having greatest detail.
- You can tell who made any change by using the "history" tab at the top of the page; here is an example, it's the Revision history of Joseph Armstrong (engineer). Click on one of the "prev" links at the left-hand end of any row; this will compare that version with the previous one, display the differences, and will also tell you who did it, and when. I see that you have made a number of changes today, many of them small: if you were using the "Save page" button simply to check the appearance of your work, it may have been better to use the "Show preview" button. This allows you to check and correct without committing a version to the page history, which can clog up a user's watchlist.
- Yes you can cite websites (see WP:REFBEGIN), provided they are reliable (which many are not, see WP:RS).
- I don't personally like steamindex as a website; and not just because it's a tertiary source. It collects information from a variety of sources (themselves often tertiary), and often makes errors in transcription. One tertiary source which it does use for most people is John Marshall's A Biographical Dictionary of Railway Engineers. Sometimes I have noticed that the text in steamindex is almost the same as the text in Marshall's book; but with slight differences, usually typographical (Marshall himself didn't get everything right, either). When steamindex does give sources, it's usually best to go to those, and use them as your reference source; if the source be Marshall, then check the entry in Marshall's book, where his sources are given. In the case of the Armstrong brothers, Marshall lists Holcroft's The Armstrongs of the Great Western, also certain items in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and similar publications. I'm willing to bet that Holcroft himself drew material from Proc IME also; it's surprising just how many layers get built up in this way - if there were such terms as "quarternary source" or "quinary source", steamindex would be described so. What I'm saying is that if there's a discrepancy between, say, Holcroft and steamindex, I'd go with Holcroft any time. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've begun looking at your changes. You had two problems here. First, on the left-hand side, there is a misconstructed ref tag. The basic format is
<ref>put ref info here</ref>- note the absence of dots, also, like almost any HTML element, they go as an open-close pair, the closing tag being distinguished by having a slash character immediately after the less-than symbol. Second, on the right, you've tried to use the{{sfn}}template for other than its intended purpose.{{sfn}}won't link to an external site - it creates an internal link to another point on the same page, usually one of the citation templates in the "References" section, such as a{{cite book}}or{{cite web}}. The webpage that you tried to link appears to be both anonymous and undated, so{{sfn}}won't link in normal author/year; but there are ways around it. The method that you used here does work, but has a minimum of visible information. I'll give it another look tomorrow, with the object of producing a ref something like a combination of that used for Quakers Yard and Merthyr Railway, note 2 and that used for Charwelton railway station, the Tonks 1968 website. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)- Following on from the above, I have fixed up the misuse of
{{sfn}}for three website links within George Armstrong (engineer) - see here. Basically,{{sfn}}takes six parameters - these being (i) up to four author surnames, or if the page is anonymous, another identifier may be chosen (I've used the web page titles); (ii) the year of publication, if known; (iii) the page number(s), or some other means of identifying the position within the web page. None of these parameters is permitted to be a URL. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Following on from the above, I have fixed up the misuse of
- OK, I've begun looking at your changes. You had two problems here. First, on the left-hand side, there is a misconstructed ref tag. The basic format is
Joseph Armstrong
[edit]Hello again redrose 64
You will see that I have expanded the Joseph Armstrong article quite a bit. In fact I hope it's not TOO long - I suppose that in time the Gooch, Dean and Churchward ones can be enlarged too?
I hope there are enough references; your(?) paragraphs have more than one per sentence! I have my copy of Holcroft 1953, the standard work, to hand, but for some other references I will have to add the page numbers later.
I've enjoyed this afternoon of writing and hope that you think the article is along acceptable lines. Can we add some pictures? The following are available easily online:
Signed lithograph of Joseph: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2661/3903316423_90e60e22c9_m.jpg
Nice photo of a 2-2-2 in original condition, without cab - It is a "Sir Daniel" class, No.472 - part of http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/Trains/Joseph.htm
'Standard goods' 0-6-0 as rebuilt with belpaire boiler and cab (by Dean?) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2738/4069180768_03f41b215b.jpg
One of the 'Standard goods' built as a broad gauge 'convertible'. http://www.broadgauge.co.uk/library/images/locomotives/a59_388/1205_01_large.jpg
If there's room, a nice period piece with human interest: a Sir Alexander class at Witney station http://www.martin.loader.btinternet.co.uk/2-2-2_Witney.jpg
FINALLY there is something funny going on with the 'Notes', which have two No. 22s (though if you play with the page size, another number repeats.) Or is this just a problem with my browser???
Best wishes,
Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8474tim (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 September 2010
- I haven't yet been through your additions to Joseph's article, although at first glance, I don't think that it's too long. We have some loco engineer articles that are either longer - or really ought to be. This, like the others you mention, get enlarged as-and-when, by whoever happens to have source material and happens to feel like doing it - there is no timetable, and Wikipedia is entirely a volunteer project.
- Regarding images: links to external images should be avoided, mainly because they can't be incorporated into the page itself. If the copyright owner permits, then under certain circumstances the image might be uploaded in such a way that it can be incorporated into a Wikipedia article, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. All images found in Wikipedia pages are held in either of two websites: wikipedia itself, which holds mainly non-free images, and Wikimedia Commons, which holds exclusively public domain and freely-licensed images. See Help:Files for more info.
- Personally I've never uploaded an image which wasn't one which I had created myself, or was so old that it was out of copyright, see my images.
- I don't see a problem with the "Notes" section, apart from a number of number of cases like "Nock 1990, p. 00" or similar. If these are yours, could you please amend to show the correct page numbers? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's better to have too many references, rather than too few: all information in Wikipedia should be verifiable, which normally means putting in a ref. When I get two different facts from two different books, I ref each one individually, to avoid accusations of synthesis, as I mentioned in the first paragraph of my reply in the thread above. However, too many references can also be a problem. What is too many? Difficult to say; but I once encountered some definite overkill - unless you're squeamish, see List of cases of penis removal#2005-2010, where the entry beginning "On May 2009, in Singapore" has 49 references for a single event. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Armstrongs again
[edit]Thank you for yours of earlier today, which I have just found and read.
Thanks for the various tips and remarks. I am sorry if I have clogged things up by pressing 'Save' so often - the inexperience of a beginner.
I thought until about an hour ago that I did not have copy of Holcroft's Armstrong book where I am living at present, but I am glad to say that I now have it to hand, which sorts all but a few queries and reference questions. I now regard my work on the Joseph article as largely complete apart from a few page numbers, which will follow in due course. I will be curious to read any reactions form you or others.
Holcroft makes clear the reason for Wolverhampton's long independence from Swindon, the roots of which lie in George's stubborn northern character. Joseph had to tread very carefully when appointing Dean 'over his brother's head' (he could not appoint George himself as his assistant, for fear of accusations of nepotism). Then on Joseph's death in 1877, Dean found himself in the even more awkward position of being the nominal boss of George, his own former boss. Holcroft records George's reaction: "he didn't give a damn for any man and was taking orders from none. He only GAVE orders!" Dean decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and let George get on with it - perhaps not suspecting that George had 20 more years of hard work in him.
According to Holcroft, in his 33 years at Wolverhampton George turned out 1,139 locomotives, 626 new and the rest listed as rebuilds - some of them (as I mentioned) of Swindon originals. But there is no doubt, I think, that those 626 NEW engines are to be firmly attributed to George. "There was no question of the rugged independence of Stafford Road Works in George Armstrong's time" (Holcroft p.89 - by the way, Holcroft actually met GA during his childhood). Nearly all of the new engines were 0-6-0 or 0-4-2 tank engines (including the 517 class!) (plate of the original loco no.517 after p.96 in Holcroft - "built Wolverhamption 1869-70"...)
You are right that many later books lead to ambiguity to referring to an "Armstrong class" without specifying which brother. This perhaps reflects a lack of interest in the brothers over the decades, as living memory of the locomotives died out - as compared with the glamour of the broad-gauge era, and the work of later CMEs whose engines worked up to the end of steam, and can still be seen in preservation. As regards the ambiguity of a lone surname, in my own professional field of music there's a similar situation with the name 'Bach', which to us means Johann Sebastian. But in Germany c.1770 if you talked about 'Bach' people would have understood his 2nd son, Carl Philip Emanuel, and in London his youngest son Johann Christian would have been assumed. Easy to assume that just 'Armstrong' meant Joseph, perhaps.
I think that's enough Wikipedia for today. Addictive work. Next I'll try and write a shorter article, on George, and then suggest a list of the more significant (numerous) Armstrong classes that might deserve separate articles.
By the way, there are several copies of Holcroft 1953 for sale on Amazon, some for less than £10, if you're interested...
Tim 8474tim (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
PS
[edit]My third mail has crossed with your second - for which many thanks. As I say, I will add the missing page numbers as soon as I can - I cannot access my own library of railway books at present, but I do remember the references.
Tim
GWR locos template
[edit]Thanks Redrose (sorry, do I know your first name?) for starting the list of Joseph Armstrong standard gauge locos on the locomomotive template.
Please note that there should also be a line for his (standard-gauge) Wolverhampton engines, above the entry for George.
Tim 8474tim (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, you don't know my first name - Redrose64 is a pseudonym, because Wikipedia is anonymous: but if you're interested why I go by that name, see my user page.
- None of the pages on Wikipedia - and that goes for templates too - pretends to be complete, so if you believe that something is missing from Template:GWR Locomotives, you can have a go at editing it yourself, or pop a note on its associated talk page. One reason that I've not added Joseph's Wolverhampton engines yet is that as yet I'm unsure what the page names would be. AFAIK there are something like 42 locos to consider, of four wheel arrangements, one class per wheel arr:
- 2-2-2 - 4: nos. 7, 8, 30, 110
- 2-4-0 - 18: nos. 111-114, 115A, 116A, 5A-8A, 1010, 1011, 372-377 (GWR 111 Class)
- 2-4-0T - 12: nos. 1A-4A, 11, 177, 344-349
- 0-6-0T - 8: nos. 302-309 (GWR 302 Class)
- --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
For Redrose64
[edit]After a day of work on 1. George Armstrong 2. The GWR loco classes Template (thanks for tips on this) and 3. Locomotives of the GWR, I'm calling it a day. I think I've got as much info on classes as I can out of Holcroft 1953. This has an annoying habit of giving numbers for some J.A. classes but not others, and with George he (perhaps understandably) simply gave up when it came to the prospect of detailing 30 years' output of constantly changing 2-4-0T and 0-6-0T classes. Another, lesser problem seems to be what to CALL a class - is it the number of the prototype, or of the lowest-numbered example?
I've never seen the RCTS volumes on the GWR but I see that the British Library has them, so I'll carry my Wikipedia work on there.
Best wishes
Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8474tim (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 September 2010
- As far as possible, we use the official GWR class, prefixed "GWR" and suffixed "Class". If that changed at some point, we use the final one for the actual page name, (e.g. GWR 1400 Class), and create redirects for earlier versions (e.g. GWR 4800 Class). If the official GWR class is unknown or vague, we go by a reliable source, such as the RCTS 14-volume series The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway - if that uses a particular number for a class, that's the one we go by. In some cases it's more difficult, and sometimes we lump the odds-and-ends together. See, for example, the article GWR Dean experimental locomotives - eight locomotives built in ones or twos with nothing in common except the GWR and Dean. It saves having lots of little articles having little chance of expansion.
- If the British Library want Dewey numbers for the RCTS books, they are 625.26 or thereabouts. Authors, however, vary: see, for example, the four listed under GWR 378 Class#References. When searching the shelves, the original binding was pale brown/buff softback, about 6" wide by 8" tall, varying in thickness from under +1⁄8" (part 11) up to +7⁄8" (part 10), (of course, the BL may have rebound them as some libraries do). If you're only interested in Armstrong locos, you can safely ignore parts 7 to 11 inclusive. Parts 12, 13 and 14 each contain corrections to earlier parts, so shouldn't be ignored. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I did wonder if whether the way forward is an article for each wheel arrangement of Armstrong engine, like the Dean experimental locos article that you mention, with references to separate articles just for the more numerous classes. How else can one make the information digestible - not just for the GWR but for 19thC locos in general?
8474tim (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably best off seeing how it's been done elsewhere, go with the flow. Unfortunately, people have concentrated on the classes which survived to be represented at Nationalisation, so there's not much precedent for locos which were extinct well before then. There are articles on individual locomotives, but virtually all of these were either historically significant, or have been preserved.
- You could always leave a message at WT:UKRAIL and see what the consensus is.
- If you really want to make your head spin, consider the locomotives of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway prior to the arrival of William Stroudley. His predecessor, John Chester Craven (who at one point both the Armstrongs reported to, after the departure of John Gray) built locomotives for specific duties. Not just "for the Brighton-Portsmouth line" or "for the fastest expresses", but "for the 9.30 departure from Lewes and 4.15 return". Almost every one of his engines differed in some way (at one point, the LBSCR directors tried to save money by buying 12 identical engines from a particular manufacturer; but as soon as they arrived, Craven set about altering them so that they were all different). Bradley, in his Locomotives of the LBSCR, part 1 (RCTS), tries to group some into classes, but often gives chapter sections to ones and twos. Nightmare. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Strangely enough I DO have Vol.1 of the RCTS LBSCR volumes, so was aware of this! - also of the fact that locos were continually renumbered so that 'capital account' machines could carry suitably low numbers. 8474tim (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Strange redirect
[edit]You recently created a redirect from Standard Goods to GWR Ariadne Class. This seems like a poor redirect because the term "Standard Goods" is simply to broad to refer only to a particular railroad locomotive. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Might I suggest a redirect at Standard Goods (locomotive) instead? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Standard Goods
[edit]I agree. I have used instead the existing redirect, to GWR Gooch Standard Goods class. Thanks. 8474tim (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Small matter: but if replying to (or posting additional comment on) an existing talk page thread, we don't normally start a new section; that way it's clear what you're replying to. Further info at WP:TPG. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of GWR 2361 Class, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://train.spottingworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=GWR_2361_Class&action=edit.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Re the above: I would say that CorenSearchBot has detected a copy of your page on a fast mirror. That is to say, there are websites out there, some being wikis themselves, which carry copies of Wikipedia pages, see WP:MIRROR. Some of these watch out for new articles on Wikipedia and immediately make a mirror copy, hence "fast mirror". When new Wikipedia articles are created, CorenSearchBot searches the web for anything similar, to check for a copyright violation. If it's slower to search than the fast mirror site is at updating, it will think that you have made the copyright violation, rather than the other way around. Unfair, but hopefully the copyright admins will spot the error and revoke the warning (when doing so, they'll remove the tag from the article, but leave the above message alone). As a side-note, I have added a header to the comment which you left at Talk:GWR 2361 Class. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seems that I was right, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
License tagging for File:MAV 4-8-0 at Budapest 1972.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:MAV 4-8-0 at Budapest 1972.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Kent Coalfield
[edit]Re the image you added, it clearly shows two steam locomotives. Are you able to identify them? Currently, only one steam locomotive is shown against Snowdon, so once we know the identity of the second, it should be easy enough to find a source and expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The loco on the left was called St Thomas, and the other was St Dunstan. I can't help with works numbers, sorry. I do have another 8 shots of the locos and sidings, if you're interested - all taken over the fence, since we schoolboys weren't allowed in! 8474tim (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- That should be enough info to search with and come up with sources to expand the article with.
Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Romanian-built P8 class at Sălişte.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Romanian-built P8 class at Sălişte.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of GWR 3206 Class, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://train.spottingworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=GWR_3206_Class&action=edit.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories
[edit]Re this edit - you added [[Category:Great Western Railway locomotives|806]] but the article already bears [[category:Great Western Railway locomotives|2201]]. I have two issues here. First, you probably know that the bit after the pipe - ie "806" and "2201" - is used for sorting the content of a category; when sorting in this particular category, we presume four-digit numbers, so that 806 is sorted before 2201. Thus, the first should have been [[Category:Great Western Railway locomotives|0806]]. The second issue is more serious: you can't put the same page into a category more than once - if you try to do so, all except the last one are ignored. So, the page is placed in Category:Great Western Railway locomotives, sorted in the 2's. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the lede image; the old one had more shrubbery than locomotive! --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
December 2013
[edit]
Hello, I'm Wwwhatsup. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Julien Temple, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sorry about that. Read up on Original Research. Perhaps you can find a school yearbook or something that could be referenced? Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
"GWR 1501 Class" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect GWR 1501 Class and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#GWR 1501 Class until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)