Talk:List of GWR standard classes with two outside cylinders

Connecting rod lengths
A fairly important dimension for standardisation is the length of the coupling rod, which determines the distance between the cylinders and the driven axle, and hence the geometry and dimensions of the valve gear. Although I have this figure for the proposed classes (10 ft 8 1/2 in for the large-boilered classes, 6 ft 10 1/2 in for the others) I do not have it for the classes that were actually built.

Has anyone got the RCTS books, or similar?

Verbarson (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The coupling rod lengths are determined by the wheelbase and nothing else. I think that you mean the connecting rod, which determines the distance between the crosshead and the crankpin. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are completely correct. I meant connecting rod length. In practice, the crankpin circles around the axle, and the piston rod was (I believe) of a standard length, so the connecting rod length determined (not equalled) the distance between the axle and the cylinder. If I am wrong about this, then maybe the piston rod length needs to be added too? Verbarson (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My fingers obvious hate typing 'connecting'; I have corrected 'coupling' to 'connecting' twice in the previous paragraph. In any case, the coupling[sic] rod lengths are given in the table under 'Driving wheel spacing'.--Verbarson (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

New lead paragraph
I discovered, quite by chance, that this page has been translated into nl.wikipedia.org nl:Lijst_met_GWR_standaard_serie_locomotieven_met_twee_buitenliggende_cilinders, where it has acquired a rather disapproving "Improvement requested!" notice. I found that I agreed with at least one point; that the lead section was not fit for purpose. (Many of the other inadequacies may have been down to an automated translation process?)

How did I find this? On the page, I clicked 'Page information', found the 'Wikidata item ID' and clicked that, and saw in the Wikipedia box that there were two articles linked, this one and the Dutch one. You live and learn.

--Verbarson (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You took a roundabout route: the page information link is in the sidebar, and at the bottom of that is a "Languages" heading, below which is the link to the Nederlands [Dutch] article. But if their article has a poor lead, that's their problem, not ours. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's another thing I have learned. I thought it was a rather unlikely article to be transferred to the Dutch Wikipedia, but I can scarcely blame them for sharing my interests.--Verbarson (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

References to a compendium
Hi. This comment uses a great deal of text to describe a rather minor issue, but I want to be sure to describe the issue accurately.

First of all, I refer to a change made to the references in GWR locomotive numbering and classification. I have since removed those references, as they are unused. (I must learn to use cut-and-paste with more discretion). However, the same references, and hence the same issue, are present here in List of GWR standard classes with two outside cylinders, and so it is still worth setting it out.

There is a book, a single volume, cited most simply as:

This book is actually a compendium: a reprint of three-and-a-bit volumes of the same name, originally brought out by the GWR in 1911, 1928, 1938 (selected pages only) and 1946. The pages are photographically reproduced, and include the original page numbers, and there is no attempt to supercede them with an overall page numbering. Therefore, page numbers are duplicated, and to refer to a specific page it is necessary to specify the edition (eg by year) as well as the page. In order to do this, I included the book in the references twice (as I only refer to the 1928 and 1946 sections):



This simulates the original separate volumes, but not having them, I will not pretend to refer to them, in case changes have been made. Using these references, I could enter a footnote such as. I wasn't altogether satisfied with this solution, but it worked in the article.

Now, at your suggestion, Citation bot has changed the references to look like this (only one example given):

In that it no longer corrupts the title, this is a beneficial change, and it allows the s to work unchanged. On the other hand, it introduces a rather clumsy edition name Reproduction of 1928 which could be improved.

I am wondering whether it would be better to reference the book once: and to change the s to include the edition information, thus:. However, since you are more of an expert in references than I am, and you have already interested yourself in this particular issue, I would like to solicit your thoughts on the matter before making any changes.--Verbarson (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a good idea to overload the p parameter of . The thing to do is to use the loc parameter, as in . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is proof against Citation bot moving the 'edn' bit to the edition parameter?--Verbarson (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * doesn't have an edition parameter. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A-a-a-and that's how confused I am. I will implement the loc solution with a single reference entry shortly. Thanks for your help.--Verbarson (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * References updated.--Verbarson (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)