Talk:Henry the Green Engine

Yikes!
This technical controversy section that has just been added was probably by someone who didn't care for or know about their grammar. There's superflous material, punctuation that is lacking and overly used, run on sentences, dreadful spellings, and totally illegible sentences and paragraphs. I'll do my best to clear up this mess, but I would like some help.Ohyeh 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would seriously consider reverting the change, if I were you. This comparison shows the text that was added - a few typos have since been corrected.  I would also suggest that the account in The Island of Sodor... is to be considered pretty much definitive, considering that it was written by the original author!!


 * Any paragraphs covering the TV series should be kept separate. The two formats are notorious for covering the same subject matter differently (check out the different stories of Stepney!!), so there is no point in trying to square the book and TV portrayals.


 * As far as the Rev. W. was concerned, this 'two Henry' issue was to try and resolve some of the long-running illustration issues he was encountering. It is probably inappropriate to read too much into it.  I mean, you are starting with the premise that a steam engine has conscious thought and can talk.  Describing it as a 'rebuild' avoids the problem of having to explain the transfer of a character's personality between different physical entities.  It was a childrens' book, after all!


 * EdJogg 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any better? It took a couple of hours, but I think it reads more smoothly and is (hopefully) more NPOV. The TV Series view still requires more work, but that is mainly due to the number of references to 'splashers'! EdJogg 02:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HenryTTTE1.jpg
Image:HenryTTTE1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible censorship issue
I was reading this article when I saw this line: The story was attacked in 1972 due to the fact that it described the boys in question to have been rendered "as black as n*****s." I personally feel that it violates WP:CENSORED, in how the word "niggers" is asterisked out. Should this be changed? Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 02:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the asterisks and replaced the word including a wikilink to its article as per WP:NOTCENSORED. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 04:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OR/SYN/guesses and notability
This article is stacked full of horrible grammar, opinions, unsourced material and material that might be unsourced, might be synthesis or might be simpe guesswork.

I started to correct some of this, but I think there is a more fundamental problem that needs to be addressed first: notability. Yes, we can certainly locate sources that discuss each and every character is most notable works of fiction. However, we do not have an article on each of them. Some (but by no means most) fictional characters are individually notable. Basically, the easiest way to figure this out is use of the character outside of the fictional universe it was created for.

Take, for example, Superman. Yes, we have various articles about various storylines in the comic book universe. We also, however, have an article on the character. Superman is often used as a metaphor for real world people and events. A community activist might be compared to Superman. Other fictional characters in unrelated fictional universes are based on Superman. There are newspaper articles, academic journal articles and books about Superman in the popular imagination. There are notable songs about Superman that are completely independent of any Superman comic book, movie or TV show.

By comparison, while we have an article on The BFG, we do not have an article on the giant. We do not see the character used as a metaphor, other fictional characters (independent of Dahl) based on him, newspaper articles, academic journal articles, independent books about the giant, independent notable songs, etc. The giant in The BFG is not notable independent of that book/series/film.

I do not see this article/character passing this test. I see lots of unsourced material. Some of it is simple WP:PLOT material, waiting to be excised. Most of it is unsourced and likely unsourcable: the character is based on this or that real world engine, the character likes this or that, feels this or that, etc. The remainder is details pulled from the books, cartoons, etc.

That "The eagle-eyed will spot that Henry's top-feed (the nub in front of the dome) is somewhat forward along the boiler than most 5MTs, corresponding to 1940s modifications by HG Ivatt." is a combination of these factors, akin to an anatomical discussion of whether or not Superman has a collarbone and evolution on Krypton.

I'll let this sit for a bit, then come back and see if any tags have been responded to and decide if I think it can/should be saved. I rather expect it to go to AfD at some point. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge to List of characters in The Railway Series
This article is entirely inappropriate. Almost all of it is unsourced, it is mainly original research and written in an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Most of it is fan-fiction at best. Despite the pleas above, none of this has been addressed over multiple years. As an alternative to starting an AfD I suggest we merge what little is useful into List of characters in The Railway Series. Laplorfill (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am an unashamed fan of the Railway Series but I have to agree. Henry does not need a separate article. He is only notable either as a character in the Railway Series books or as a character in Thomas and Friends TV series. Further despite both being anthropomorphic steam locomotives who run on lines with the same name, Book Henry is not the same as TV Henry. In consequence this article combines two sets of facts without clearly separating them. But having said that, I would like the information transferred to the Henry sections of the Book article and the TV article rather than being deleted. I don't care that it seems to be written from a fan's point of view. I am a fan and I believe that virtually everyone who comes to these pages seeking information is also a fan. We must never forget that an encyclopedia is not just an exercise in formal writing, it is primarily a source of information for people who are interested in a subject. OrewaTel (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose and do this the right way, an RfD, not a talk page work-around, and the months long wholesale purge attempts of Railway Series articles reminds me of other Wikipedia-collection purges that I'm glad I'm not a part of. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I object to the implication that this is somehow the "wrong" way. Please read Merging - merging pages is an entirely proper way to solve this. If you are so passionate about not having this page merged, why have you done nothing to source it and otherwise address the problems it has, in the more than 15 years it has been here? Still, if you wish for an AfD, I'm more than happy to oblige. Laplorfill (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The merge rationale provided above is not a merge argument, but a deletion one. If you want to delete this article do it via WP:AFD, don't forum-shop. FOARP (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose These articles are better off separate instead of merged. And if Annie and Clarabel get their own separate articles, why not Henrietta? If everyone opposes it, then we must reverse the change and bring back the individual pages. We want detail, not unreliable pages cramped in small sections. Reverse the change or I will delete the characters page you have now.2604:6000:130F:4FB6:4805:9C89:95F9:AC7F (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion is already closed after it was decided to merge the article at AfD. We are talking about the page for Henry the Green Engine, not Henrietta (and Annie and Clarabel don't have their own article). If you want to make a case for reversing the decision at AfD you can open a discussion at Deletion review. Laplorfill (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * see Articles for deletion/Henry the Green Engine. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)