This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Should this be at List of Railway Series books (reversing the redirect) or possibly List of books in The Railway Series?
Just a thought - does anyone know more about WP naming policy? Mdcollins1984 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The following section was created within The Railway Stories.
Unhelpfully, when M&S re-published these versions (as described below) they also used the title 'The Railway Stories'.
Since the article describes the audio versions of the original books from The Railway Series, coverage of these derived works is inappropriate there.
The section has been copied here pending a decision on whether (and where) these and other directly-derived versions should be described. (All relevant articles ignore their existence at present.)
In the 1980's, Octopus Books published several paperbacks containing stories from The Railway Series for Marks & Spencer, under their "St Michael" label. Unhelpfully (for the purposes of this article), the series was also titled: The Railway Stories.
Each book contained all the stories from three of The Railway Series books using the original text and illustrations. The book format was different from the original books: a more conventional 'portrait' shape, with a picture on each page above its text. The cover background was a distinctive ' pattern. The Rev. W. Awdry was identified as author, but the preface to each book was omitted.
Curiously, only six of the first eight books of the Series were covered; the two books omitted being the two specifically about Thomas. This choice could not have been influenced by the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends TV series, whose first season covered the same eight books, as the TV programme was not aired until two years later.
Two books were published:
The books were available individually, or as a boxed set (of two).
I've just remembered (and seen on Amazon) the Ladybird books that were published as a spin-off from the TV series. I 'believe' these are the original books, albeit containing stills from the TV series, and rebranded (book one is Edward, Gordon and Henry [1].
There seem to be many other books etc available: should they be placed in merchandising articles? Mdcollins1984 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is exploding. It's getting way too much to have every single book with a link to The Railway Series listed in detail.
I propose the following:
Any thoughts before I enact this off my own bat?
Gonzerelli 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content has been removed. Please do not restore them. - M ask? 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have found the Cover art for Thomas and Victoria [2]. Felt I should let people know - Bladez636 3:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway article claims a different inspiration for the Toby character. See http://www.lner.info/co/GER/wisbech/wisbech.shtml and especially http://www.lner.info/co/GER/wisbech/toby_mavis.shtml Please feel free to put this in the article. I also see that there is no clear link to this article from the Rev Awdry's article. 89.243.189.97 ( talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Emneth, where the Rev was a vicar, was very close to W&UT. I havnt worked out yet if he moved there before or after inventing Toby. 78.149.181.41 ( talk) 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that notability and primary sources banner tags have recently been added to the article.
While the refimprove tag was constructive, it seems to me that these latest two just reflect poor research (or none at all). But wp:creed#14...
The primary sources tag appears to be pure speculation (one could ironically even call it original research, but poor research at that). Not one of the references given in the article is a primary source.
But more important, even if the speculation is correct (that is, if material in the article is based on editors reading the books themselves), that policy reads in part ...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. (my emphasis)
In terms of this policy, primary source references are (if the speculation by the tagger is correct, and I think it is) exactly what is needed to improve this article according to policy, and by discouraging people from adding them, this tag is purely counterproductive, particularly in view of the existing refimprove tag. I will remove it shortly if nobody objects.
The notability tag fares no better IMO, but the policy is less clear. I may raise this on a suitable policy or guideline talk page, perhaps wt:Notability and/or wt:Stand-alone lists. Watch this space. Andrewa ( talk) 01:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:LISTN.
Google books gives over 1,000 hits for "The Railway Series" [5] but most of these are various editions of the books themselves. There are plenty of references to these books as a series there too, but many of them are based on Wikipedia, which raises some issues.
Google Scholar does better, [6] 83 results with a significant number relevant.
Any suggestions as to more relevant searches? But even on these I think we have a case for removing the notability tag. Andrewa ( talk) 21:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Note also the parallel drawn above to the Asterix series, I'd suggest that eventually, each of the original Railway Series books at least will have its own article, each of them with a plot summary referenced from primary sources.
See List of Asterix volumes for the corresponding page regarding the Asterix series of books. Andrewa ( talk) 21:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Interested in any further comments, particularly from User:Yodin. But in that there has been no reasonable objection, I still propose to remove the tags, leaving only the refimprove. Andrewa ( talk) 21:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I have now removed the primary sources tag. I would also have removed the notability tag, but User:Maclean25 just beat me to it. Andrewa ( talk) 02:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It was suggested above that a table format might be appropriate, and the question was asked as to whether a suitable template exists to create one.
It seems likely that no such template exists. List of James Bond novels and short stories does not use it if so... it uses simple Wikitext table syntax.
(And just BTW, it lists plot details similarly to this list, many if not all of them from primary sources. But it does have quite a reflist, including both primary and secondary sources.) Andrewa ( talk) 03:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Replying to User:SummerPhDv2.0 03:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC):
There is indeed room in my mind for such things, and I agree that all such things should be removed. I will indeed find sources for anything I deliberately reinstate.
No, it's not garbage. But it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Our policy is to assume that it was added in error rather than in malice, and insulting those who added it may be fun but it is not helpful. I'd avoid the term unless it really is garbage, such as nonsense inserted by a vandal.
Similarly, I'd avoid the term fancruft or even cruft, particularly in your edit summaries. These terms appear nowhere in our policies or guidelines as far as I can see, so it's far more helpful to use the terms that do relate to the relevant guidelines (and only those, citing ones not relevant to that particular edit is not helpful either). This helps us all to avoid inadvertently reverting good edits, and probably far more important, it helps future contributors to find their way around our guidelines and get up to speed on what is acceptable.
(But some of the essays on cruft and fancruft are recommended reading if you use the terms at all. They do appear regularly in essays and discussion. Whether they are helpful even there is controversial.)
I'm not sure whether the factoid about The End is encyclopedic or not. There is much about the development of the author's thoughts that is encyclopedic. the conflict with artists, particularly over the realism or otherwise of Percy the Small Engine for example, appears in many reliable secondary sources. It would depend on exactly how the decision to include The End was made, and on whether this is documented in sources. Agree that without this information and a source, it is removable. But it's not garbage. It may well be WP:OR, or it may just be encyclopedic but unsourced. I do not at this stage know, and neither it appears do you.
I applaud your hard work and willingness to discuss, and hope you find this helpful. Andrewa ( talk) 07:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Intent
As observed above, much of this article as it was is clearly based on primary sources.
It is particularly important that we add references to these, for two reasons:
Watch this space! Andrewa ( talk) 18:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
In the notes section for Thomas and the Great Railway Show it states that "Clive Spong broke a major rule in this volume. All the engines at the National Railway Museum, except Rocket, are illustrated with faces. The Rev. W. Awdry had insisted that engines should not have faces, unless on Sodor." Now I think I have read before, possibly in Brian Sibley's biography of the Rev. Awdry, that Awdry did indeed not want engines to be depicted with faces outwith Sodor. However this "rule" had been broken several times before this by Spong and earlier artists including in books by the Rev. Awdry. As early as 1952's Toby the Tram Engine, we see Toby with a face on a railway in England. In The Eight Famous Engines the Sodor engines are seen with faces on the mainland at the end of the book, though whether Awdry intended the "rule" to be applied to his fictional creations when they were not on Sodor is debatable. More significantly in 1963's Stepney the "Bluebell" Engine there is a scene of Stepney - like the engines in Thomas and the Great Railway Show a case of a real-life engines appearing in the books with a face - coming to Sodor passing through a station with diesels who have faces and another (famous) scene with faced steam engines being scrapped. In the context of the book, these scenes must take place on the UK mainland rather than sodor. At least two Christopher Awdry books illustrated by Spong had broken the "rule" prior to this book - Gordon the High Speed Engine - where engines are seen at Barrow with faces - and very prominently in Toby, Trucks and Trouble with the flashback scenes set on the LNER featuring several engines with faces. Thus it is unfair to highlight the breach in the supposed rule in the book and I would suggest that this claim is removed. Dunarc ( talk) 20:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC) amended by Dunarc ( talk) 19:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there any source for the 1930s date claim made here? The fact that Sir Topham Hatt is referred to as The Fat Controller in the book, would seem to suggest that it is dated after the creation of British Railways, placing it after 1948. Dunarc ( talk) 20:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Under Toby the Tram Engine it states "Old Stuck-Up which takes place in 1976". However the entry for James and the Diesel Engines dates it to having "possibly taken place before the real 40125 was withdrawn from service in May 1981 and scrapped in December 1983" and later in the same entry claims 1983. I think this needs standardised. Unless there is any evidence for the 1976 date I think the 1983 date is a safer bet. Dunarc ( talk) 20:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There was also a good-sized fold-out companion map published some time before the Rev stopped writing the books; I had a copy as a small Mr Larrington. Mr Larrington ( talk) 01:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Should this be at List of Railway Series books (reversing the redirect) or possibly List of books in The Railway Series?
Just a thought - does anyone know more about WP naming policy? Mdcollins1984 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The following section was created within The Railway Stories.
Unhelpfully, when M&S re-published these versions (as described below) they also used the title 'The Railway Stories'.
Since the article describes the audio versions of the original books from The Railway Series, coverage of these derived works is inappropriate there.
The section has been copied here pending a decision on whether (and where) these and other directly-derived versions should be described. (All relevant articles ignore their existence at present.)
In the 1980's, Octopus Books published several paperbacks containing stories from The Railway Series for Marks & Spencer, under their "St Michael" label. Unhelpfully (for the purposes of this article), the series was also titled: The Railway Stories.
Each book contained all the stories from three of The Railway Series books using the original text and illustrations. The book format was different from the original books: a more conventional 'portrait' shape, with a picture on each page above its text. The cover background was a distinctive ' pattern. The Rev. W. Awdry was identified as author, but the preface to each book was omitted.
Curiously, only six of the first eight books of the Series were covered; the two books omitted being the two specifically about Thomas. This choice could not have been influenced by the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends TV series, whose first season covered the same eight books, as the TV programme was not aired until two years later.
Two books were published:
The books were available individually, or as a boxed set (of two).
I've just remembered (and seen on Amazon) the Ladybird books that were published as a spin-off from the TV series. I 'believe' these are the original books, albeit containing stills from the TV series, and rebranded (book one is Edward, Gordon and Henry [1].
There seem to be many other books etc available: should they be placed in merchandising articles? Mdcollins1984 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is exploding. It's getting way too much to have every single book with a link to The Railway Series listed in detail.
I propose the following:
Any thoughts before I enact this off my own bat?
Gonzerelli 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content has been removed. Please do not restore them. - M ask? 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have found the Cover art for Thomas and Victoria [2]. Felt I should let people know - Bladez636 3:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway article claims a different inspiration for the Toby character. See http://www.lner.info/co/GER/wisbech/wisbech.shtml and especially http://www.lner.info/co/GER/wisbech/toby_mavis.shtml Please feel free to put this in the article. I also see that there is no clear link to this article from the Rev Awdry's article. 89.243.189.97 ( talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Emneth, where the Rev was a vicar, was very close to W&UT. I havnt worked out yet if he moved there before or after inventing Toby. 78.149.181.41 ( talk) 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that notability and primary sources banner tags have recently been added to the article.
While the refimprove tag was constructive, it seems to me that these latest two just reflect poor research (or none at all). But wp:creed#14...
The primary sources tag appears to be pure speculation (one could ironically even call it original research, but poor research at that). Not one of the references given in the article is a primary source.
But more important, even if the speculation is correct (that is, if material in the article is based on editors reading the books themselves), that policy reads in part ...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. (my emphasis)
In terms of this policy, primary source references are (if the speculation by the tagger is correct, and I think it is) exactly what is needed to improve this article according to policy, and by discouraging people from adding them, this tag is purely counterproductive, particularly in view of the existing refimprove tag. I will remove it shortly if nobody objects.
The notability tag fares no better IMO, but the policy is less clear. I may raise this on a suitable policy or guideline talk page, perhaps wt:Notability and/or wt:Stand-alone lists. Watch this space. Andrewa ( talk) 01:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:LISTN.
Google books gives over 1,000 hits for "The Railway Series" [5] but most of these are various editions of the books themselves. There are plenty of references to these books as a series there too, but many of them are based on Wikipedia, which raises some issues.
Google Scholar does better, [6] 83 results with a significant number relevant.
Any suggestions as to more relevant searches? But even on these I think we have a case for removing the notability tag. Andrewa ( talk) 21:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Note also the parallel drawn above to the Asterix series, I'd suggest that eventually, each of the original Railway Series books at least will have its own article, each of them with a plot summary referenced from primary sources.
See List of Asterix volumes for the corresponding page regarding the Asterix series of books. Andrewa ( talk) 21:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Interested in any further comments, particularly from User:Yodin. But in that there has been no reasonable objection, I still propose to remove the tags, leaving only the refimprove. Andrewa ( talk) 21:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I have now removed the primary sources tag. I would also have removed the notability tag, but User:Maclean25 just beat me to it. Andrewa ( talk) 02:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It was suggested above that a table format might be appropriate, and the question was asked as to whether a suitable template exists to create one.
It seems likely that no such template exists. List of James Bond novels and short stories does not use it if so... it uses simple Wikitext table syntax.
(And just BTW, it lists plot details similarly to this list, many if not all of them from primary sources. But it does have quite a reflist, including both primary and secondary sources.) Andrewa ( talk) 03:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Replying to User:SummerPhDv2.0 03:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC):
There is indeed room in my mind for such things, and I agree that all such things should be removed. I will indeed find sources for anything I deliberately reinstate.
No, it's not garbage. But it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Our policy is to assume that it was added in error rather than in malice, and insulting those who added it may be fun but it is not helpful. I'd avoid the term unless it really is garbage, such as nonsense inserted by a vandal.
Similarly, I'd avoid the term fancruft or even cruft, particularly in your edit summaries. These terms appear nowhere in our policies or guidelines as far as I can see, so it's far more helpful to use the terms that do relate to the relevant guidelines (and only those, citing ones not relevant to that particular edit is not helpful either). This helps us all to avoid inadvertently reverting good edits, and probably far more important, it helps future contributors to find their way around our guidelines and get up to speed on what is acceptable.
(But some of the essays on cruft and fancruft are recommended reading if you use the terms at all. They do appear regularly in essays and discussion. Whether they are helpful even there is controversial.)
I'm not sure whether the factoid about The End is encyclopedic or not. There is much about the development of the author's thoughts that is encyclopedic. the conflict with artists, particularly over the realism or otherwise of Percy the Small Engine for example, appears in many reliable secondary sources. It would depend on exactly how the decision to include The End was made, and on whether this is documented in sources. Agree that without this information and a source, it is removable. But it's not garbage. It may well be WP:OR, or it may just be encyclopedic but unsourced. I do not at this stage know, and neither it appears do you.
I applaud your hard work and willingness to discuss, and hope you find this helpful. Andrewa ( talk) 07:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Intent
As observed above, much of this article as it was is clearly based on primary sources.
It is particularly important that we add references to these, for two reasons:
Watch this space! Andrewa ( talk) 18:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
In the notes section for Thomas and the Great Railway Show it states that "Clive Spong broke a major rule in this volume. All the engines at the National Railway Museum, except Rocket, are illustrated with faces. The Rev. W. Awdry had insisted that engines should not have faces, unless on Sodor." Now I think I have read before, possibly in Brian Sibley's biography of the Rev. Awdry, that Awdry did indeed not want engines to be depicted with faces outwith Sodor. However this "rule" had been broken several times before this by Spong and earlier artists including in books by the Rev. Awdry. As early as 1952's Toby the Tram Engine, we see Toby with a face on a railway in England. In The Eight Famous Engines the Sodor engines are seen with faces on the mainland at the end of the book, though whether Awdry intended the "rule" to be applied to his fictional creations when they were not on Sodor is debatable. More significantly in 1963's Stepney the "Bluebell" Engine there is a scene of Stepney - like the engines in Thomas and the Great Railway Show a case of a real-life engines appearing in the books with a face - coming to Sodor passing through a station with diesels who have faces and another (famous) scene with faced steam engines being scrapped. In the context of the book, these scenes must take place on the UK mainland rather than sodor. At least two Christopher Awdry books illustrated by Spong had broken the "rule" prior to this book - Gordon the High Speed Engine - where engines are seen at Barrow with faces - and very prominently in Toby, Trucks and Trouble with the flashback scenes set on the LNER featuring several engines with faces. Thus it is unfair to highlight the breach in the supposed rule in the book and I would suggest that this claim is removed. Dunarc ( talk) 20:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC) amended by Dunarc ( talk) 19:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there any source for the 1930s date claim made here? The fact that Sir Topham Hatt is referred to as The Fat Controller in the book, would seem to suggest that it is dated after the creation of British Railways, placing it after 1948. Dunarc ( talk) 20:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Under Toby the Tram Engine it states "Old Stuck-Up which takes place in 1976". However the entry for James and the Diesel Engines dates it to having "possibly taken place before the real 40125 was withdrawn from service in May 1981 and scrapped in December 1983" and later in the same entry claims 1983. I think this needs standardised. Unless there is any evidence for the 1976 date I think the 1983 date is a safer bet. Dunarc ( talk) 20:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There was also a good-sized fold-out companion map published some time before the Rev stopped writing the books; I had a copy as a small Mr Larrington. Mr Larrington ( talk) 01:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)