Talk:GWR 4073 Class 4079 Pendennis Castle

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Regarding article creation...[edit]

I thought individual engines got their own pages. William M. Connolley 22:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Yes and no. If you don't provide any information on the engine (build date, withdrawal date), etc. (see http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_cas_castle4.htm and http://www.railuk.info/steam/getsteam.php?row_id=1572 ) or the fact that this engine was until quite recently Down Under or provide a decent photograph then it's best just to try to concentrate on writing the article on the class (which is also a stub. We don't yet even have a list of their names). The basic research is not hard, however until it's done, the reader is best served by looking at the class page.

Ah... the only other one that I can immeadiately find is GWR 4073 Class 5051 Earl Bathurst which... um... I created. OTOH DH edited it... William M. Connolley 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

There are others around, e.g. LMS Princess Coronation Class 6229 Duchess of Hamilton, BR standard class 9F 92220 Evening Star. It's possible, but do your research. Dunc|☺ 22:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an argument against creating any stubs. Please be a little less... abrupt. William M. Connolley 08:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The guidelines specifically say "a good stub". This is not "a good stub". I'd be embarassed by it and even more so by the photo. Another one that falls into the "to get a job done properly you've got to do it yourself" box then I guess? I love this place. Dunc|☺ 09:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's your cruft you fix it. Dunc|☺ 15:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you love this place, then why not try to make it a nice place, instead of being gratuitously rude? William M. Connolley 15:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Reverted back from the redir page. This appears to be a personal dispute between two users. Also it appears one user is an admin and has used his admin powers inapropriatly. The rollback button is for vandalism & such, not for personal disputes. A stub with an image would appear to be a good stub. If the image is too dark then adjust the brightness on your monitor, it is a good image. Vsmith 16:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]