Talk:GWR 9400 Class

Strange statements
I think there are some rather strange statements in this article. Biscuittin 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "They were essentially a pannier tank version of the 2251 Class" I don't accept this because the 2251 was a mixed-traffic engine with larger wheels. Biscuittin 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "& Also the last GWR Great Western locomotives to be built in the United Kingdom Of Great Britain." I've deleted this because I think it's irrelevant. How many GWR locos were not built in the UK? Biscuittin 09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Biscuittin,
 * The only GWR locomotives that I can think of, are the three De Glehn French Compounds that "were not built in the UK"
 * Ben of Chichester 86.144.55.64 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * British Rail 18000 was to a GWR order, and built in Switzerland by Brown, Boveri et Cie. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Article rendering issues
@ While I can appreciate and agree with the placement of images in the appropriate section it doesn't really help if the images don't get placed in the section because they get rendered under the infobox leaving a big white gap in the middle of the article. On the PC chrome browser I am using on a standard desktop the two images from the Operations section are ending up in the Preservation section which for all but the right of the screen has a 4 inch gap between "Two have been preserved" and the top of the table of two preserved locomotives. Now I can look at the current arrangement on my smartphone and the rendering is wonderful. But on my desktop using what I understand in good faith to be default settings the effect on the article seems very bad to me. It is somewhat alleviated by the compromise use of a gallery, which while probably against MOS:ACCIM does not seem to allow for infoboxes on the right which can be the root cause of this issue. We can get some mediation discussion or you can attempt to bait me to be get 'd especially as I've upset plus about twenty other people recently recently.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Two things that would be marginal but not sufficient is to get some content into the Withdrawal section otherwise it needs removal and to agree the 9466 Tyseley (1).jpg image is not necessary as the preserved 9466 has its own article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Does make a difference? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes ... In my view I think it does ... well spotted and most certainly a better method to fix the underlying issue than my attempt. I'm sort of embarrassed I didn't spot in retrospect ... but one learns through pointed out oversights and mistakes.  The images can move out of section under the infobox on the right on a wider desktop display but the effect not intrusive with the loss of connection to source section not particularly critical in this example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the three images hadn't been there, that tag would also have caused a gap on a wide screen because the top edge of the table would have been pushed down by the bottom edge of the infobox - the infobox would have been the same height but the paragraphs of text would not have been as tall. You can find out about the  property [//www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#flow-control here]. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)