Jump to content

Talk:List of preserved British Rail Class 47 locomotives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge to Main Article

[edit]

Should this be merged to the main article? I don't think it really constitutes it's own entry!

I'll wait a while and then carry it out - if you object, please tell me!

BG7 23:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... ok. I will summarise it though - at the moment there is hardly any space on the preserved locos
BG7 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, summary style is fine, in fact it was on my to-do list anyway. Black Kite 00:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles

[edit]

I am thinking of creating similar articles for classes where large numbers have been preserved, e.g. British Rail Class 31 and British Rail Class 37. There is already one for List of preserved British Rail Class 08 locomotives. I could also create List of preserved British Rail diesel locomotives as a collective article for classes where small numbers have been preserved. Biscuittin (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the 08 list to tidy the 08 article, an approach used successfully on several steam loco articles that have achieved FA status, so we're hopefully on safe ground. At the time I was not aware of this article, which pre-dates it by some time.
Your suggestion seems sounds as a parent article. It should encompass all locos, using 'main' links where appropriate, but should not replace the in-article information for such rare classes as 15/17/35/42/52. Where you may have fun is with the early/prototype shunters, of which there were many!
EdJogg (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Biscuittin (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of preserved British Rail diesel locomotives is now almost completed. I suggest we create single-class lists (like the 08 and 47 ones) where more than 20 locos of the same class have been preserved. Does this sound OK? Biscuittin (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't quite what I was expecting, but it does provide a new view on the information.
A few suggestions:
  • Class 08 and 47 should also state number preserved, in same format
  • Don't use text numbers -- use 'none' and digits
  • I would say you could cope with separate articles for classes exceeding 10 preserved examples
What I had expected was a list containing a number of small tables for each of the preserved classes. This would work fine where the numbers are small (there are only a small handful of classes numbering between 6 and 10 preserved examples). It would need the table column widths fixing in some way, so that all tables looked identical, or it would be very messy.
However, now I have seen the current format, I like it, and adding tables would remove the clarity -- it's really easy to see how many of each type are preserved (I wouldn't have thought of doing it this way).
There again, I think there is still scope for a list containing a set of tables, so maybe the answer is to create such a page as a sub-list -- one for each of shunters, Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, etc -- and linking to these with {{main}}.
EdJogg (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the numbers, as you suggest. As for the lists, would these incorporate the existing 08 and 47 Lists? Biscuittin (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That looks much better: more consistent, and using text for 'none' acts as a subtle highlight (if that isn't an oxymoron!).
For the lists, I would suggest a single {{main}} in each section of the main list with the links to the 08/47 lists moved to the sub-lists. I admit that this will reduce the visibility of those two lists, but it does mean the list structure is more consistent.
The sub-list tables need to have a consistent format. The Class 08 list includes operational state, while the 47 list does not. I am undecided as to whether 'livery' and 'operational status' are actually encyclopaedic, particularly as the status could change on a weekly basis (will it be updated here?) but I will continue to 'go with the flow'.
EdJogg (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a trial page at User:Biscuittin/List of preserved British Rail type 1 diesel locomotives by copying the Class 20 list and adding the Class 15 and Class 17. Please comment. Biscuittin (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a need for headings and links to the loco class articles. I have applied these to your table (seemed quicker than writing loads of comments), and I have also created an alternative version split into class tables. For the second version I have used 'definition' (;) headings, since I think we are allowed to wikilink from these. However, the list should probably use proper '=' headings, from which we cannot link, so we might need to use a '+' table row for these links instead. I do not know which is better, but my ideas had envisaged the second, multi-table approach.
The location column needs to use wikilinks (and note that each row should have its own links - rules on avoiding link repetition do not apply within tables) -- but I suspect that the external links came from the Class 20 article, didn't they?
Does that help?
EdJogg (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your version split into class tables is better. Yes, the external links came from the Class 20 article and I agree they should be replaced by internal links. I don't know much about tables so I usually copy an existing one. Biscuittin (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that lists of preserved locomotives, and those formerly preserved but since scrapped, should be seperate from articles on locomotives,mainly due to considerations of length and because on preserved locos is always changing, and is news-like, and unsuitable for encylopedic articles. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Multiple names

[edit]

Having just applied some formatting to the table I note that a couple of locos have had two names. These names should be presented separately in brackets, as done for D1943. I wasn't certain about D1778, so that may need attention.

Presumably these names correspond to specific numbers, in which case it might be appropriate to adjust the vertical alignment of those numbers to suit (eg 47500 Great Western). On the other hand, since many names were applied independent of number changes this might be an unworkable idea.

EdJogg (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of preserved British Rail Class 47 locomotives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_preserved_British_Rail_Class_47_locomotives&oldid=1202690262"