Talk:LMS Royal Scot Class

Comment
Dear Duncharris,

I appreciate that this article is very much your own creation, so you have every right to feel that I have interfered, but I don't suppose it would be possible for you to include reasons why you thought my revision was 'not nice', because in my eyes it tidied it up and made it more interesting for the general viewing public.

Quoting from the Be bold in updating pages section,

''Wikipedia not only allows but wants you to add, revise and edit the article yourself. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works.''

I did not delete any of your own information, but did add some sections of interest, such as Glasgow Highlander's role in 'night mail', which as a fellow railway enthusiast I'm sure you see as a valid contribution to your article. I felt that with adding this information, it made the article somewhat messy, especially given that 'Fury' is rather an odd subtitle that doesn't really give any help to a novice looking up the 'Royal Scot' class. Thus, by making it an indented section in a wider 'notable locomotives' subtitle, it gave the article some substance, as you may see in some other railway related pages, i.e. British rail.

I have chosen not to revert your page, although I would like to know why you felt it neccesary to delete my edits, particularly given this Wikipedia agreement;

Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make little progress. Editing policy Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob (talk • contribs) 17:21, 31 December 2005

Having just seen a documentary called 'The Train Set', which was aired earlier today (31 December) on ITV1, which actually showed footage of 'Night Mail', I feel I am within my rights to revert the page to the edited version, particularly as it links to a page which you have edited yourself.

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.223.177 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2005


 * Your rearrangement is not good layout and goes against wat is on other similar pages. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 19:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This constant reverting between different versions is not productive. I personally prefer the "notable locomotives" version, but perhaps a bullet pointed list could be used instead, and make it clear further info can be found on the relevant loco page. I suggest further comments are taken up on user talk pages. Our Phellap 19:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment 2
Omar
 * I have added the Rivarossi model, but then the modified page displays in a funny way without soft CR. Why? Can someone explain me please. I am a novice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcornBBC (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's because you added a leading space to the lines; see Help:Wiki markup. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split
I propose to split off LMS Rebuilt Royal Scot Class as a separate article covering the 2A rebuilds on the basis that they were moved to a different class when reboilered.

AS with


 * LMS Patriot Class/LMS Rebuilt Patriot Class
 * LMS Jubilee Class/LMS Rebuilt Jubilee Class

Any comments? Thanks Tony May (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. First, I suggest that you start similar discussions on the Patriot and Jubilee talk pages, because this one thread should not cover all three pairs. Secondly, you should add a template to the top of this article, something like this:
 * and do something similar for the Patriot and Jubilee articles. Finally, notify both WT:RAIL and WT:UKRAIL. See also WP:SPLIT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CREEP, WP:IAR, WP:BEBOLD. Tony May (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why WP:CREEP? -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No offence, because you're giving me all these instructions on whose permission I need to create an article, when really I should just go ahead and do it. Seems a lot of notification. Tony May (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No offence, because you're giving me all these instructions on whose permission I need to create an article, when really I should just go ahead and do it. Seems a lot of notification. Tony May (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)