Talk:GWR 4900 Class 4942 Maindy Hall

Notability - 29xx Saint rebuild project
As to why this particular Hall is notable, when others might not be, I'd direct you to the 29xx Saint rebuilding project. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - the article does not yet do it justice, but this unique rebuild project is certainly sufficient to make this loco notable.EdJogg (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvement plan
Do we need to produce an improvement plan for this article? It has defeated a recent proposal to delete it, but I haven't seen any activity in the last week or so to add to the article - surely we're risking another deletion proposal? Andy Dingley, do you have any further encyclopedic references, images etc that can be added? If it's just a matter of having sufficient editing time to input them, let me know, I'd be pleased to help, even though I am not familiar with the particular locomotive in question... ColourSarge (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have neither the time nor a particular knowlede or inclination to re-work this article. Creating content is always going to be slower than tagging it for deletion, it's just a mug's game to try and catch everything that the new article police have tried to stomp. 8-(


 * If no-one can offer better, just tidy it into a properly formed and formatted neat-looking stub, labelled as such and with appropriate external links to the projects involving it. It certainly needs some categorization, and better context around the listed wls to the broader articles. Then stop worrying. There's nothing wrong with this, and someone else can pick it up and go further whenever they want. Remember that subjects have notability, not content - a proper stub should be reasonably safe against marauding deletionists. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Currently work is getting in the way of my wikiediting time(!) but I'll try to do a few googles on this later today and see if there is anything I can add in the way of external sources to help firm up the notability, and then perhaps re-format the article to allow future expansion. ColourSarge (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As a working strategy I'd recommend not doing that. It's like the old heroin adverts - it's "only a couple of quick Googles, you can handle it..." Next thing is it's two in the morning and you've twenty-three more pages of raw notes to be dealing with. Don't add anything to this. Tidy what's there first, then draw a line under at least that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sage words, indeed, Mr Dingley! I must remember them when I'm faced with a potential DYK candidate... (Must remember to use the sandbox for major article expansions...)


 * ColourSarge, if you must Google, I would concentrate on finding something to support its main notability claim. The GWS site is linked twice, but doesn't obviously refer to the Saint project. If you find other relevant pages in passing, resist the urge to include them in the text and instead drop them on this talk page under 'Further Research' or some such. Then, if you or others feel so inclined, you can re-visit the page in the future and have your source material links ready and waiting. I find that, in practice, (a) no-one has complained about me doing this; (b) no-one else bothers to look at the refs and enhance the article. (This I do not understand! There are even some waiting on the Tower Bridge article!); (c) you can take a step back, knowing that your research efforts have not been wasted; (d) you have a ready supply of 'things to do', when you get bored (I suggest you keep a note of the articles to which you have 'pending references' so you can find 'em again!. I'm not very good at doing this!!)


 * But as for this article, I'd go along with Andy. If you have no particular knowledge or interest, and your only 'emotional' involvement is because the article may be under threat, only do the minimum needed to tidy it up, and if you can find an(y) online reference to the Saint project, you can safely remove the notability banner once the link is in place.
 * EdJogg (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Basic tidy-up done. Thanks for the Didcot 'ref' page! EdJogg (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Research
Taking the advice offered above, I have managed to find some further online references to this locomotive, and some which deal specifically with the current conversion to Saint Class specifications. Ahem (clears throat)....here we go....

http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/locos/2999/2999.html

The above page provides some technical data on the specification for the locomotive when conversion work is complete.

http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/guide/projects.html

Overview of the project, and of the Saint Class, together with a link to further project news.

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_hal_hall49a.htm

Listing for Great Western Hall Class locomotives Nos 4900 to 4949, including first and last shed allocations, and disposal.

http://www.hmilburn.easynet.co.uk/enthuse/steam/locos/gwr/4900.htm

Page containing technical details for the original "Hall" class locomotives (may be useful for comparison with the tech specs in the first link above...)

http://www.steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=4973

Some more general information on the locomotive being converted...

Hopefully this will act as a suitable starting point for firming up notability....ColourSarge (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on GWR 4900 Class 4942 Maindy Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090829084156/http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk:80/guide/projectitems/2999project.html to http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/guide/projectitems/2999project.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)