Talk:SR Q1 class/Archive 1

2005 Discussions
I don't quite understand why a revert war is going on. It seems to me that we need to take account of Wikipedia's international audience, and of the fact that there are indeed British locomotives in overseas "national" railway centres (I have already cited the example of A4s in North America). What is the possible harm done by qualifying "National Railway Collection" with the word "Britain's", whereas it might be helpful.

Duncharis is simply reverting and leaving sarcastic comments such as "Don't be silly" or "As opposed to the French national railway collection, because that would make much more sense...". Is there a logical reason why we should NOT qualify which railway collection?


 * Okay, I'll try to keep this simple for you. A British locomotive (that is explicit earlier) is in the National Railway Collection.  If it were in the French national collection (or for that matter any other national railway museum), it would be pretty remarkable, in fact worth mentioning in the page (There is a WD Austerity 2-10-0 in the Dutch Railway Museum in Utrecht -- that's worth mentioning).  The 33001 is in the British national collection.  No Q1 has ever left these shores. (really?  that's unusual and surprising and not what you'd expect /sarcasm).  You would have to be remarkably stupid not to realise this is implied.  Dunc|&#9786; 20:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think people might have to be remarkably stupid not to realise that "the" (sic) National Railway Collection to which you're referring is the British one. As you point out, and as I have also pointed out, there are lots of British locomotives which are in overseas collections. What is so offensive about including the "British"? Why are you so determined to remove it? You do seem very angry about this point, and I am struggling to see why.


 * I never said there were lots of British locomotives in overseas collections. Do not put words into my mouth, anon.  The vast majority (99%+) are in the country that they came from!!! (gee, surprise).  Sure, there's the dubdee in Utrecht and a couple of 8Fs in Turkey, and another in Iraq, but they're the exception rather than the rule because they were war engines, built in Britain and used abroad, during and then after the war.  There are still more examples of British-built engines for export in Africa, Asia and South America, but they were separate from the British mainline stock and never turned a wheel in the UK.  A better example might be is Pendennis Castle which never went abroad during its lifetime and did go to Australia.  That is worth mentioning, because otherwise the assumption of any intelligent being would be that it very odd to leave GB. You do seem very insistant on the fact that you don't see this being odd. Dunc|&#9786; 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm, you seem to ignore the example of the A4s, I guess because they were mainline locomotives that spent most of their lives on British rails but somehow ended up in different places.


 * But the more important question is why you persist in both talking down and using sarcasm. I thought one of the joys of Wikipedia was how we all try to work together as a community to provide information for others. Your belittling of other contributors (well, only me, so far as I know), does not do you any favours, and seems to work against the idea of a community.


 * The one point you keep not addressing is this: you used the word "implicit" to indicate that people would somehow know which National Collection was being referred to. I asked if you thought it was a good idea for an international resource to contain implicit assumptions when they could so easily be made explicit. I would argue the whole point of Wikipedia is to make knowledge explicit. Indeed, you have followed this principle yourself - eg, when you made it explicit that Bulleid was "ever the moderniser". Why did you not decide that someone who produced such an innovative engine as this was, obviously, a moderniser? Is it not better that you made it explicit? I felt the same about my reference to the current location of C1 - I inserted the location, then on reflection felt I was being a bit Anglo-centric. What is so terrible about trying to be clear?!


 * Ref: Q1 Revert Bitchfight...I'm sorry, but it looks like you two are just made for each other. I'll stick a line of my own in (which means something 'in between') and hopefully you two can bugger-off and take your handbags somewhere else :-)
 * "Jesus, what a bloody ugly engine" said Thomas. "Looks like it's been dragged through a mousehole backwards". ChrisRed 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)