Talk:Mamod

Model Enthusiasts
I've removed this link for two reasons. First, it looks as though this company is just retailing spare parts - the other companies mentioned are actually manufacturing stuff, and so demonstrate a life independent of the Mamod company. Second, the link is just plonked in and doesn't make grammatical sense. If it can be confirmed that the company is making pattern parts, then let's put the link back in in a readable and coherent fashion, if not best leave it out. Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mamod discussion forum - external link
Ed jogg Stop removing the external link to the Mamod steam reference library and discussion group. This website provides much more further reading and information. I know you are a boring rivet counter, and obviously have no life (hence the constant editing of Wiki).

Stop being such an Anorak, take your Thermos and go watch some trains. Why do you not remove the link claiming 'pictures of toy steam engines' which has no information about Mamods, and it's a personal website.

Noob!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.73.88.38 (talk • contribs).


 * Despite your complete ignorance of the Wikipedia policy on Civility, I shall ignore your personal remarks as they are all completely groundless and untrue.


 * The simple reason for removing the link to the Mamod discussion forum is that it violates Wikipedia's policy regarding External Links. Clause 10 of the section Links normally to be avoided includes "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET."


 * If the website was more than just a forum, there would be no problem about linking to the site's main page, or the page about Mamod history, etc. But the link is to a forum, and it has to go. Feel free to ask elsewhere if you wish, but I think you'll get the same answer.


 * As for the 'pictures of toy steam engines' site, if you look you will see that there are two pages of annotated photos showing Mamod models. I agree that it is a 'personal website', but it contains no direct advertising and provides a useful resource for this page. It would be far better for the models concerned to be described on this (or another) page, and for public-domain photos to be made available, but you'll have to take that up with the website's owner. Were the Mamod WP page to be elevated to Featured Article status, I'm sure that it would need to be removed, but for now, unless you have something against Mamod models, I would suggest it is fairly harmless and should stay.


 * EdJogg 10:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

you're being ignorant, the MAMOD forum is packed full of information and pictures! You don't have to discuss you can browse freely without joining, if you keep removing it then you're making this page worse off for it! so we have to ammend the link to some pictures? and you won't remove it?


 * I think it's a shame the mamod forum link has to be removed. I find it to be the most valuable place for information about Mamod engines on the Internet. Is there any mechanism within Wikipedia that allows me to debate this issue for this page? Zzubnik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Company history
I've just reverted the removal of a couple of links to an external site that has a very well researched and complete history of the company. If there are any problems with the inclusion of these links, please can we have some explanation to justify the removal. Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New additions
I've been adding as many pictures as I can to the existing list. I intend on expanding the ranges covered somewhat, as there are many missing items. I hope this doesn't tread on anybodies toes. Thanks to all who have already contributed to this page! Zzubnik (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Foggybottom can I ask to refrain from removing the external links to the website content relating the the very well researched history of Mamod steam engines.

Thankyou.Freesteam (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand this bit
In the newly added part of the Running Requirements section, I don't understand the phrase "...and the file did not burn with a reduced heat when compared to 'meths'". Am I missing something or does this need clarifying? Roly (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

SA1 gearing
In the SA1 section, quote: "This arrangement provides much higher gearing than the traction engine-based models, allowing a higher top speed." Is this right? I thought it was the other way round (slower). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roly Williams (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just made some rough measurements on my examples and the SA1 is slightly faster than the SW1 but slightly slower than the TE1 Roly (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much detail in article on small matters, and too like a collectors book, too little referencing.
What wikipedia is not says "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details". Much of the article is taken up with the mutinae that is of benefit to the collector or researcher and not for the general reader. Such detail is better served by websites (such as those listed in external links). What the article does need is better referencing for the content it does have. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

These are all things that I hope to get to Mr Leggett, could I ask you to refrain from removing any more content as the detail in the copy is of great significance to the Mamod company story as well as collectors and historians on the company like me. We cannot all hit the ground running and conform to Wicki's almost impenetrable requirements every time. Citation and details on sources will come. Its taken a long time and fight, I might add, to get the images onto the page. If your editing/meddling continues I shall simply discontinue any edits or association with the pages, which I can confirm have received a positive (so far) response from collectors and toy steam historians. There is work to do but applying rigid inflexible rules to this page is both counterproductive as well insult to the few of us who have taken the time to prepare this information. Spokessmann.


 * While I understand your concern at seeing material you have contributed rewritten or removed, the content of wikipedia needs to be aimed at informing the general reader not for delivering the detail desired by a collector or historian. In fact I would say that the materials published by historians of the subject are what is needed to back up the content (see the WP:Verifiability policy) in this article, and not the other way around. As to whether detail is of significance, I'd like to suggest that the causes of the detail is more important than the how and why of the detail. In my editing I have been removing the fine detail which I think is of little benefit to the general reader at the same time as I have been copyediting for idiom, wikilinks and formatting. If you think I have removed some important content, then it is your right as an editor to reinstate it, but if there have been other edits that are constructive at the same time, these should be preserved. As to images in an article - the image policy WP:PERTINENCE states "Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful". At the moment the images are all very samey; a shot of the whole of a steam engine. For example at first glance at the size presented in the article, the 1965 SR1 and the 1973 SR1 look like two shots of the same thing. For reader interest, more variety is needed. If there are many photos of the models they would be better served by being categorized on Commons and linked to from the external links section.
 * As you say, there is work to be done, but ultimately it needs to conform to Wikipedia's policies and generally follow guidelines. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * GraemeLeggett, by your logic, I can go find some of the more scientific articles and remove a lot of them. They contain small details. My point is that many articles on Wikipedia contain a lot of detail, not just this one. To the people that want to know, these details are not "small". Also, this is a place where information gets kept. Other websites come and go. Please leave this article to the ones who understand the subject. Have a look at all the detail in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishonored_(video_game) Or even more so, look at this one that you yourself have edited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Eagle_(1918). Now, stop touching this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.236.14 (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)