![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Mr May attempts to use a page that he wrote and controls as part of this discussion, but his actions on that page show that he is not prepared to discuss what he wrote there. He removes any changes that dissenting voices put on that page -- which would be breach of etiquette if done here. He also attacks other editors on that page and misrepresents the points that other editors seek to make. This level of control of a discussion is not concensus building -- rather it is a sham discussion. In short, the page is used in a manner that is inconsistent with this discussion page and hence should not form part of the record of discussions here. Mr May can bring his points here if he wants, where they can be discussed by all.
I'll go further and suggest that references to the Tony May/A1 page should be deleted off this page. Captain Nemo III ( talk) 17:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Would I be right in thinking that there is consensus that the article is OK in its present form except for the inclusion of Tornado in the infobox? Biscuittin ( talk) 19:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the current infobox (left). I propose that certain aspects of the infobox related to Tornado be removed, resulting in a new infobox (right):-
Current | Proposed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Please indicate whether you Support or Oppose the proposed change so that consensus can be gained as to whether or not the infobox should appear as it is or be amended.
Mjroots (
talk)
06:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom. Mjroots ( talk) 06:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's an improvement. Another improvement would be to put all references to Tornado in (brackets). But I'd rather that Tornado was considered elsewhere in the infobox, perhaps in its own field, and not with the original locomotives at all. "No. in class" looks a bit silly as BR only had 49 Peppercorn-designed locos in Class A1. Tony May ( talk) 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Support it seems to be a reasonable compromise, giving details for the original 49 locomotives, while acknowledging Tornado (with presumably the detail differences either picked up in the sub-section on Tornado or in that locomotive's own article). The "Number in class" field seems spot on to me - it is irrelevant whether or not Tornado was on the BR books as the article is concerned with the type of locomotive, not its ownership. ColourSarge ( talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
2700 hp seems a lot for a Pacific, especially considering it's British. And why is the number under "tractive effort"? No qwach macken ( talk) 04:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Mr May attempts to use a page that he wrote and controls as part of this discussion, but his actions on that page show that he is not prepared to discuss what he wrote there. He removes any changes that dissenting voices put on that page -- which would be breach of etiquette if done here. He also attacks other editors on that page and misrepresents the points that other editors seek to make. This level of control of a discussion is not concensus building -- rather it is a sham discussion. In short, the page is used in a manner that is inconsistent with this discussion page and hence should not form part of the record of discussions here. Mr May can bring his points here if he wants, where they can be discussed by all.
I'll go further and suggest that references to the Tony May/A1 page should be deleted off this page. Captain Nemo III ( talk) 17:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Would I be right in thinking that there is consensus that the article is OK in its present form except for the inclusion of Tornado in the infobox? Biscuittin ( talk) 19:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the current infobox (left). I propose that certain aspects of the infobox related to Tornado be removed, resulting in a new infobox (right):-
Current | Proposed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Please indicate whether you Support or Oppose the proposed change so that consensus can be gained as to whether or not the infobox should appear as it is or be amended.
Mjroots (
talk)
06:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom. Mjroots ( talk) 06:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's an improvement. Another improvement would be to put all references to Tornado in (brackets). But I'd rather that Tornado was considered elsewhere in the infobox, perhaps in its own field, and not with the original locomotives at all. "No. in class" looks a bit silly as BR only had 49 Peppercorn-designed locos in Class A1. Tony May ( talk) 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Support it seems to be a reasonable compromise, giving details for the original 49 locomotives, while acknowledging Tornado (with presumably the detail differences either picked up in the sub-section on Tornado or in that locomotive's own article). The "Number in class" field seems spot on to me - it is irrelevant whether or not Tornado was on the BR books as the article is concerned with the type of locomotive, not its ownership. ColourSarge ( talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
2700 hp seems a lot for a Pacific, especially considering it's British. And why is the number under "tractive effort"? No qwach macken ( talk) 04:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)