User talk:Iain Bell

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:


 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Hello there.
Nice to see someone else contributing to railroad articles. I assume you are the same user who was hitherto editing anonymously? Welcome in any case, and hope you enjoy it here! &mdash;Morven 12:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
-- DP 67  (talk/contribs) 10:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

List of LNER A1/A3 class locomotives
I see you are linking the names of the locos to the racehorses they are named after. Flying Scotsman is currently linked to that loco' article. Mjroots (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed it, so that the '4472' and '60103' link to LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman, and Flying Scotsman links to Flying Scotsman (train), which is after all, what the loco was named after. Iain Bell (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see you undid my addition. The title of the article is List on LNER A1/A3 class locomotives. As such, it should cover all A1/A3 locomotives, or be retitled! Mjroots (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article name was just A1, then I would agree with you. But as it is A1/A3 it implies that it is only the LNER Class A1/A3 locomotives. Perhaps a "for..." link at the top for the LNER Thompson Class A1/1 and the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 would be an idea for those unfamiliar with the LNER. By the way, Tornado is already on the Peppercorn A1 page, at the bottom of the list. Iain Bell (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Iain, there is a dispute at LNER Peppercorn Class A1 over the structure of the article. I have made extensive comment at talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 relating to this. It is my view namely that Tornado should be considered separately from the original 49 engines. User:Biscuittin is in general agreement with me, but would appreciate it if you would read all the arguments from both sides and then add your input. One editor in particular is refusing all compromise and insists on owning the article and listing the replica with the original 49 engines. I assume that since you have Locomotives at the Grouping by H.C. Casserley, you understand the importance of having accurate stock lists, i.e. the engines as owned by the railway companies. Thanks for your help. Tony May (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

NP Edits
Howdy! Please stop moving the NP locomotive roster lists from the Northern Pacific Railway to a separate article. It was not my intention to set it up as a stand-alone article and I found its removal both counter-productive and discouraging. After a brief survey of North American railroad pages on Wikipedia there seems to be plenty of precedence for maintaining a roster summary on the page of the specific road itself. I listed several in my most recent update, I am sure there are more. The ATSF seems to be the most extreme example -- if a roster and painting summary is available, NP steam and diesel rosters are small potatoes. JP3. (Small NP credential: past editor NPRHA's Mainstreeter.) Qy0f (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Re: the LT&SR locomotives. Tony May (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

LMS - W. V. Wood, Lord Stamp, Presidents, Chief Executives and Chairmen!
Hi Iain, just a quick note to say I have re-edited the notable people section of the LMS article to remove the bracketed "Chairman and Chief Executive" text after the title for the section on Presidents. I have done this because I can find no source which actually refers to the President as the Chief Executive, but rather the President of the Executive. The source I am using (Whitehouse and St John Thomas, 2002) only indicates that the role of President was analagous to that of a modern day Chief Executive, so I included that in the text further up the article to provide a comparitor for the lay-reader. Also, according to my source, W. V. Wood was never actually Chairman of the LMS: as far as I can tell, that post remained vacant after Lord Stamp's death, so while Stamp was President (from 1 Jan 1926) and Chairman (from 1927), holding both offices concurrently, Wood was only ever the former. Of course if you have a source that gives different info, feel free to revert my edit. I have clarified slightly by adding Stamp to the Chairman section, dated 1927 to 1941. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

K&ESR
Re the 0-5-0, nice catch! Presumably a bigger variant of the 0-3-0! Mjroots (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

CR NSU page
Thanks for the clean up of the page - it is looking a lot better.

I have removed the ref to the "U" series you added in. I cannot find anything to support the SULZER L series having a "U" variation. THere was the "L" (inline) either as a single bank or two parralel banks with a common output shaft, and the "V" series - common crank.

If there was a "U" series would be very interested in it. Sulzer55 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See U engine article. Iain Bell (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian - this page appears to describe "U" as a generic classification, rather than something specific to the Sulzer Traction Engines. "U" was not, as best as I can find, used to describe any of the Sulzer variants Sulzer55 (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SD40-2F
Iain, was the EMD SD40-2F a London only model? Jeff. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - 25 “Red Barns” for CP (c/n A4806–A4830) Iain Bell (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

General Motors Diesel Division
Just to let you know there is a lot of confusing information on the General Motors Diesel Division page. GMDD was the Canadian operation of GM, building military vehicles, buses, and locomotives, The US operations were GMC for buses, and EMD for railway locomotives. The page includes details on vehicles not built by GMDD and therefore is inaccurate. GMDD was based in London, Ontario, with a plant later built in St.Eustache, Quebec to satisfy the 'buy Quebec' rule for buses in Quebec. Jsp3970 (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Locomotives of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway
Thanks for adding the rest of the NSR fleet. I was just settling down to do it myself and found to my delight that you'd beaten me to it. NtheP (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I did wait 3 hours before I started — having been on the receiving end of an edit conflict, I know infuriating it can be at the end of a long edit. Iain Bell (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. :-) NtheP (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

LNWR 2-2-2 3020 Cornwall
Thanks for adding the Cornwall image File:HLB Lok 2.jpg. It has made the article look a lot better. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the image on commons with an incorrect description and in the “unidentified locomotives” category. So it’s more to luck than anything that the image and the article were linked. I haven’t a clue how the image ended up in a German archive. Iain Bell (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

SECR K and SR K1 classes, SECR N1 class, SR U class, SR U1 class and SR W class boilers.
Hello, Iain. I've noticed you have Haresnape's book on Maunsell locomotives (I borrowed it a while back, but its been returned to the owner, and I didn't write any page reference numbers down, more fool me!), is it possible for you to clear up the air of mystery that surrounds the manufacture of the boilers used on the above locomotives? I believe the N1 and W class used the remaining N class boilers at Woolwich, so they could have been anything from NBL, Stephenson and the other manufacturer (can't remember it at this time). What I really want to know is where were the boilers used on the U, U1 and K/K1 classes manufactured? This would help clear up a bit of a mystery on these articles, as it has been assumed that all boilers were sub-contracted out to NBL. Any help (and reference page numbers) would be gratefully received. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

FM OP800
Iain, I have reverted your category changes to this locomotive article, as the equipment diagram here (also referenced in the article) clearly shows the driving wheels to be on the rear truck. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Railroad
Thanks for fixing names at National Register of Historic Places listings in Blount County, Tennessee. However, please note that this is a list of places under their official names as they're listed on the National Register of Historic Places. If you want to write an article about either of the properties designated as "Southern Railroad Bridge" or "Southern Railroad Freight Depot", please do so and we'll pipe the link, but the official NRHP name remains "Railroad". If you think it's a major problem, you could always contact the Register people to try to get it changed. Don't think that I'm telling you this to get rid of you — the NRHP wikiproject has reported a large number of errors to the Register people and seen them fixed. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Narrow gauge railroads in the United States
Thank you for the very nicely done improvements to this article. Thewellman (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. As I have managed to borrow a suitable reference book, I’ll see if I can expand the list. Iain Bell (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Just in case you wondered what was going on - WP:OVERCAT - and including mother with child cats at WA steam locos - there are also some very weird bits of misinformation creeping in to some of the arts - trust my edits look ok - please let me know if I have done something that might look odd - cheers SatuSuro 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC) The more I look at some stuff - I think some of the mother cats are a bit askew in australian railway categories - but will wait till i here from you first to elaborate on that SatuSuro 02:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty and modified Category:Western Australian steam locomotives, making it a child of Category:Western Australian locomotives, and removing it from Category:Rail transport in Western Australia. I also added a Commons category. Otherwise everything looks fine. Iain Bell (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I think I am having a serious think about defunct, disused and closed in relation to railway lines and railway stations for the whole of WP - any thoughts on that one? If there is one standard - the actual article is defunct - do you think that is the best? (I will have to change a lot of the ones i created in australia) Some idea of my way of thinking is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Another_pedant_from_west_of_your_location SatuSuro 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer defunct, as it has the broadest scope. It can cover stations closed to passengers where the line is still open for freight/goods; and lines that have been embargoed because the company wants to abandon it, but doesn't want to go through the formal close process (see Weymouth Quay railway station). Iain Bell (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that - if you and GO both say that - then I shall start a process of changing applying at CFD the cats that I have created - and others that dont conform - within the next week or so - I think the Disused bothers me so much I might even start before then :) SatuSuro 14:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help in cleaning the cats up as well - cheers SatuSuro 14:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One of my big gripes across a whole lot of projects is the constant doubling up of mother and child cats - at South Australian locomotives - the cat Locos by railway and  Locos of OZ - surely that is a case where the mother and child are being doubled up? SatuSuro 14:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The child categories of Category:Locomotives of Australia are being used as both Locomotives by Railway and Locomotives by State, with one being explicit, and the other implicit. The trouble is that for SA and VIC the former is explicit; and for the NSW, QLD, TAS and WA it is the latter which is explicit. Ideally, they should all be one or the other, not a mixture. There might be enough suppor to have cats for both, e.g. NSWGR locomotives and Locomotives of New South Wales. Which brings me to another point – if the category is by state then should it be Locomotives of , rather than  ian locomotives? Iain Bell (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in my rather poorly expressed ideas at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_6#Category:Western_Australian_locomotives - I am getting embarrassed at the way I expressed myself there - this does just touch what you have mentionedSatuSuro 14:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Locomotives_by_railway for the standard practice SatuSuro 14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Australian_Railway to me listing both the state and lines cats is another mother-child double up - what do you think? SatuSuro 14:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well as the article is in Category:Railway lines in Western Australia, then it should NOT be in Category:Rail transport in Western Australia as well, as the former is already a child of the latter. And ditto for South Australia. Iain Bell (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree totally - thank you so much for letting me sound this out - having had the conversation I will feel much more on safe ground pulling out many mothers from some very odd overcategorised items - SatuSuro 14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies for spring all this on to you - the server lag is so bad I am getting off - will check here again tommorow - cheers SatuSuro 15:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye
As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM Wuh  Wuz  Dat  02:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

SW900RS model correction needed
Hi. I have been researching the British Columbia Electric Railway (BCER) / BC Hydro (BCH), now Southern Railway of BC (SRY). I have dug deep into its diesel motive power and have learned that all 12 of the EMD / GMD SW-type switchers they purchased are model SW900, not SW900RS, and that, in fact, there was never a SW900RS model produced by EMD / GMD. My sources for this info are Doug Cummings, a former BCER/BCH employee and retired locomotive broker, and EMD itself. I received an official corporate response recently, from two employees in their Service Parts Engineering Group, Jim Rusin and Yuk Mui.

The main SW900 article is correct, because it does not mention an RS designation anywhere and it also correctly lists the info for BCER. However, a page linked to from that page, List of GMD Locomotives does have an RS category, and I was told that you were the editor that added the SW900RS entry.

I am happy to share via email the messages from the sources I listed above. Thanks. — Kent Sullivan (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The source would have been The Canadian Trackside Guide (1987 and 1990 editions). It might be that the editors of that publication are incorrect, as Pinkepank (1973) The Second Diesel Soptter’s Guide doesn’t mention the SW900RS at all. Feel free to merge the SW900RS model in the table into the SW900. — Iain Bell (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am in touch with the authors of CTG as well and gave them the same research. I changed the table just now to remove SW900RS and increase the total of SW900 to 97. I also changed the date of the final production to 1969. — Kent Sullivan (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Tank engines
Hi Iain, I notice you have edited Exe locomotive and other loco pages to change the wikilink to 2-6-2T to 2-6-2T, which is merely a redirtect to the original link. This seems inefficient and counter to Wikipedia guidelines (which suggest avoiding redirects where possible)- so perhaps you can explain the reason for doing this? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While it (and the other tank engine wheel arrangements) is (are) at present a redirect, someone may decide to create it (them) in the future. The 4-4-2T and 4-6-4T are the best examples, as they have little in common with their tender counterparts. Secondly: another editor has started creating categories for the tank engines, so while I’m amending one, I may as well amend the other. — Iain Bell (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Screw the "Wikipedia guidelines", they're wrong (that's if they even exist).
 * Redirects are useful. One of the places they're particularly useful is in a situation like this, where we can hide the current redirect from 2-6-2T to 2-6-2. This allows us to write a vast number of articles as if 2-6-2T was already a separate article (which it does indeed warrant). Then when we get round to creating it in the future, we're already linked. In the meantime, redirects handle the linkage to the best article we can currently offer. Even better than this, it's quite likely that an article on 2-6-2 will already / soon will have a section within it on the tank variant, and we can make the redirect point to that section within the article, for very little new effort at all.
 * What would you suggest instead? Remove all the redirs to 2-6-2T, delete the redirect to save precious bytes? Then in a year or two, when we have even more articles on 2-6-2Ts which are poorly linked to 2-6-2, some poor fool could then spend ages going back and fixing them up all over again - rather than avoiding the whole lot by some pro-active thought like this up front. Is there a sudden crisis of server capacity? Have we run out of space for Pokemon and X factor applicants?
 * What I really love about WP is wasting a whole evening on an edit that really shouldn't have been necessary in the first place, then to be told that it's "counter to Wikipedia guidelines" by someone who doesn't even understand MediaWiki or what a redirect is for. Thanks a bunch. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a trifle harsh, Andy! I was only asking Iain why he was doing this! I agree that redirects are useful - I have used them myself, and if a future 2-6-2T article is intended, or 2-6-2T is a valid Whyte notation, then I can see the reason for it. It isn't as if I've be reversing any of the edits that are putting these redirects in place. If it is a good idea, then I'll support it - I just wanted to know, that's all! I might even help with some of the changes, but please, less angst! Your comment: someone who doesn't even understand MediaWiki or what a redirect is for wasn't really called for - especially in a third party's talk space. What happened to assume good faith? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Harsh maybe, but I don't like my effort being dismissed as less important than a few processor cycles. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1947
Hi, do you have a nationality for Belpamela? If so, would you add the relevant flag? Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't at the time of my edit, but in wandering around uboat.net, I found a photograph of the Belpamela on the page of the sister-ship MV Belmoira. Both were Norwegian. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NMBS/SNCB class 40
Thankyou for the message about the Palestine Railways H class's 70 sister locomotives on NMBS/SNCB. As you have the published source about them, do you fancy writing a SNCB Class 40 or NMBS Class 40 article? As the Belgian and Palestinian Baldwins were consecutive in the War Department number series, 810–870 and 871–920, it would be nice to cover both classes and interlink the aricles. Motacilla (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't have much more to add. The only bits in that source (about half a page, incidentally) that I left out was the identity of two early casulaties – one that didn't make it to the 5-digit renumbering, and one that was in the Russian zone of occupation at the end of WW2 and not repatriated. — Iain Bell (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sharp, Stewart & Co.
Hi, regarding edits such as - it's not necessary, see WP:NOTBROKEN. The only necessary changes following a page move are to the redirects, which have all been done. So long as the redirects are fixed, links within article pages should be left alone.

Also please note that is incorrect, because Sharp, Roberts and Company isn't "a region, state, principate's holding, city, city-state or such" - the previous template  (which is an alias for ) was correct. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just was trying to clear up after the move. As the the Redirect template, there are so many of them, it's hard to know which one to use. — Iain Bell (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes linking an article to a redirect is intentional. Where the article that you want to link to has redirects from former or alternative names, it's generally best to use whichever redirect most closely matches the company name given in your source text. So, if I were writing about a particular class of locomotives, and my source book stated that they were "built by Sharp Roberts & Co.", I would link to.
 * There are two lists of redirect templates, but I don't think that either of them list every R template. There is Template:R template index, which lists the main ones (unfortunately omitting ), and groups them into categories with a short summary of when its use is appropriate. By contrast, Template messages/Redirect pages lists the most, but is sorted alphabetically (not terribly intuitive), and its explanations are essentially the same as the template text. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SR Battle of Britain class 21C151 Winston Churchill
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   08:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Red rose64 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh?
Since when does anyone in Australia use Cape gauge or does the tasmanian engines of ages ago belong to metric specifications? Please show some trains project decision that I have obviously missed - Australian usage has always used the term 'narrow gauge'' and never 'cape gauge' - cheers SatuSuro 10:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * [edit comflict] The category Category:Cape gauge railway locomotives is relatively new, having only been created in the last couple of days (and not by me). Since the creator only populated with 3-foot-6-inch gauge South African locomotives, I just added a few more locomotives of the same gauge of different countries. If you think the category would be better if renamed something like Category:3ft 6in gauge locomotives then please feel free to take it to WP:CFD. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - Cape gauge is a problem - not doing anything for the moment - but hmmm, grrrr, etc etc SatuSuro 13:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - Actually Cape gauge railways has the qualifier This is a category for all railways of Cape gauge (3' 6" / 1,067 mm) in southern Africa - it is not saying Australia etc. SatuSuro 13:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So what happens to the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Narrow_gauge_railways_by_country ? SatuSuro 10:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ‘Narrow gauge’ is relative. In South Africa and Japan, 1067 mm is the standard; in India 1000 mm is “medium gauge” (there being 762 mm and 610 mm gauges). There is also a Category:Track gauge by size by the way. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I take your point on that - I am wondering whether an inter-country comparison article is required to explain it all away :( 13:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stumbled across this - I'd argue that 'Narrow gauge' isn't relative at all. Standard gauge is 4' 8.5"; anything less is 'narrow gauge', anything more is 'broad gauge', Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Whyte links
Hi - is there any reason why you're replaced a number of whyte templates with direct links to the wheel arrangements? The advantage of using the template is that it produces two links, one to the wheel arrangement and one to indicate the meening of the suffix (e.g. ). Replacing this with 0-4-2ST simply gives a redirect to the first link.&mdash;An  optimist  on the run! 11:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that the template has several problems:
 * It takes longer to type  than to type  ;
 * It puts a space between the wheel arrangement and the tank code; something I have never seen in print and could be construed as original research.
 * It dates from before the creation of the tank engine redirects ( and others). Once the tank engine wheel arrangements are forked out of the tender locomotive articles, Template:Whyte becomes either broken, a maintenance nightmare, or both.
 * Some of the wheel arrangement articles have a tank engine sections, e.g. 4-6-2T, and the redirect is to that section.


 * Yes I know the second point can be fixed, but then hint that there are two different links is lost. Overall I can't see the need for the template and I was thinking of taking it to WP:TFD.
 * Apologies for late reply, been AFK for a few days. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To reply to your comments:
 * The length of code is more or less irrelevant - the text should be designed for readers, not editors.
 * As you acknowledge, the second point can be fixed, though the space was discussed at the time (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2008, 2). Possibly it's non-standard, but I don't see how it's OR.
 * The template can be modified to link to (e.g.) 0-6-0T when and if the content is forked. I can make changes so that in the meantime, it links to the anchor.
 * The template had other advantages, for example, links directly to the relevant article rather than the dab page 4-4-2. Currently a lot of articles that point here, that need disambiguating. Also as I stated above, it also provides a link for what the suffix means. Feel free to nominate it for TfD if you like, but IMO it has more benefits than otherwise, and I will replace it in articles where I feel it necessary.&mdash;An   optimist  on the run! 07:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Follow-up - I've recoded the template so that (for example) now links directly to 4-6-2T, so that future content splitting will not cause problems.&mdash;An   optimist  on the run! 09:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Boards of Directors
Hi, re the Boards of Directors that you have been adding to railway company articles - could you please state their period of office, since some of these companies existed for several decades, and it's unlikely that any one individual served continuously. Also please give the source of your information per WP:V. Thanks. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a source, but its hard to add dates unless you have access to a full set of Bradshaw’s, something that even the British Library doesn’t have (according to their online catalogue). — Iain Bell (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely there's something in books dealing with the specific railways. For example, in George Dow's trilogy on the MS&LR/GCR, he lists the Directors and their periods of office in the appendices at the back of each volume, and in the main text gives the dates of election and reason for leaving office. If all you have is the 1905 list, it would be best to explicitly state in the articles that these were the directors in 1905, so as not to give the impression that they were also directors in, say, 1855. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

hlist in navboxes
Hi, re to Template:British Rail Locomotives - I've. You had left some pairs in place, and had omitted to convert the below section. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Missing the was my error; not doing the below section was intentional, as during a conversion of another Navbox that I did, the preview showed it to have gone pear-shaped, so I reverted that change, and left that section as-is since then. — Iain Bell (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, then you probably didn't spot that the below ignores listclass - when there's a bulleted list in below, you need to add hlist -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have guessed that hlist would have solved it. Again, thank you. — Iain Bell (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhodesian locomotives
Great to see someone is making a start on the RR locomotives! André Kritzinger 18:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of information on Rhodesian locomotives — so once I have translated the 20th class article from de.WP, I'll be down to creating stubs. Regards — Iain Bell (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS — Thanks for all the hard work you have done on South African locomotives.

R&W Hawthorn
Hi, re : the merger of R. & W. Hawthorn with A. Leslie & Co. was in 1884; although I don't have the actual date. The source that I used when I added the building information definitely shows "R. & W. Hawthorn & Co." It's possible that the merger occurred before the first loco was delivered, but I prefer to go with what is actually stated by the source and not to adjust company names. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did have second thoughts about making the change – but Nock states “Hawthorn, Leslie & Co.” If your source differs, we may have to put a ‘sources differ’ note on that page. Incidentally, the R and W Hawthorn page states the merger was in 1880; the Hawthorn Leslie and Company page states 1886. The former is unreferenced, the latter is referenced by a dead link. I think more research (and referencing) is required; so feel free to revert. Regards, Iain Bell (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have given my source for the 1884 amalgamation: it's
 * It's certain that the amalgamation had happened by 30 July 1889 - see (top of first column) and  (bottom of first column).
 * Anyway, I do have Nock (two copies: one is the 1954 original (in hardback), the other is the 1974 paperback reprint), and he does state "Hawthorn, Leslie & Co.", but that is only one of four books which I have checked that gives the post-amalgamation name. One source, so far not mentioned but somewhat older than the others, is
 * which states "R. and W. Hawthorn", and so by omitting any mention of Leslie, this agrees with Baxter and with Boddy et al. Could it be that the amalgamation occurred whilst Hawthorns were building these locos, with the result that some were delivered under one builder's name, the rest under the other? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It’s quite possible. I do have a note of two locomotives supplied by R&W Hawthorn to Alexandra (Newport & South Wales) Docks & Railway in February and March 1884 (Works nos. 1976 and 1977; A(N&SW)D&R 0-6-0ST nos. 13 and 12). Not sure where I made a note from, but if you have the RCTS books on GWR locos, it should be in one of them. Regards, Iain Bell (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AD nos. 12 & 13 (GWR 664/5) were purchased new from R. & W. Hawthorn & Co. (Nos. 1977/6) in 1884 ; AD nos. 16 & 17 were from Hawthorn, Leslie & Co. (Nos. 2146/7) in 1889 . No months are given for any of these. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It’s quite possible. I do have a note of two locomotives supplied by R&W Hawthorn to Alexandra (Newport & South Wales) Docks & Railway in February and March 1884 (Works nos. 1976 and 1977; A(N&SW)D&R 0-6-0ST nos. 13 and 12). Not sure where I made a note from, but if you have the RCTS books on GWR locos, it should be in one of them. Regards, Iain Bell (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AD nos. 12 & 13 (GWR 664/5) were purchased new from R. & W. Hawthorn & Co. (Nos. 1977/6) in 1884 ; AD nos. 16 & 17 were from Hawthorn, Leslie & Co. (Nos. 2146/7) in 1889 . No months are given for any of these. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AD nos. 12 & 13 (GWR 664/5) were purchased new from R. & W. Hawthorn & Co. (Nos. 1977/6) in 1884 ; AD nos. 16 & 17 were from Hawthorn, Leslie & Co. (Nos. 2146/7) in 1889 . No months are given for any of these. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 44767 / LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4806
Does one of these need a rename, and if so, which one is it? I'm assuming the first as "LMS 4767", but is there any clear guidance around on this, and does it depend on build dates? I can see some argument to listing all of them, BR-built too, under the consistent BR numbers. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My preferred name is the first identity:– 4806 was built at Derby in July 1944, therefore LMS number is appropriate. Nº 4767 was built at Crewe in December 1947; I would like to see it moved, but others might argue that its LMS service was insignificant, and the BR number better known (WP:COMMONNAME). To which I would argue that BR Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 44767 would be a better name, as the present one is a mongrel. — Iain Bell (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "service" is indeed irrelevant. "Did it ever carry the LMS 4-digit number?" should be enough, whether it earned a day's revenue or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And for that matter, Category talk:Individual locomotives Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your idea has some merit – I sometimes look at Category:Individual locomotives and wonder which ones have been scrapped. — Iain Bell (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have heard it said that articles about individual preserved locomotives should reflect the present-day identity. That has its merits; but there are some locos which get a fresh repaint every two years, which sometimes goes together with a change of identity. I don't think frequent article moves is a good thing. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree – continually renaming articles is counter-productive. Better to (1) keep the article under a name consistent with other locomotives (I prefer the first number) and (2) use redirects to catch people looking for other identities. — Iain Bell (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding images to Steamtown, U.S.A.. --Ishtar456 (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Iain Bell
Do you know the composer Iain Bell ? --Piers Gaveston (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No (not me!), and no relation (at least that I know of). I had never heard of him, until you pointed to the article. Thanks and regards, — Iain Bell (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism
Hello Ian, Re Forty-and-eights. A certain twit User:Cak22 User talk:Cak22 has twice; if not three times, turned the article into a redirect. I only realized this when I checked the revision history after I corrected the redirect. So I felt justified to turn it back to where you had it. Peter Horn User talk 19:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I havn’t been that active on WP, so I missed that change; thank you for catching that. I’ve updated the talk page – the projects were classed as Redirects.
 * The Forty-and-eights and Merci Train need some work: the former needs references and both need "Main article" links to each other.
 * Regards, — Iain Bell (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nasmyth, Gaskell and Company:
Are we going to be given a reference- I can't sleep waiting in anticipation. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will be adding references. — Iain Bell (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Chemins de Fer de l'État locomotives
Hello, I added two new images of 030 C 815 and 140 C 231. Cheers, Krest12 (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding one of 030.C.815. — Iain Bell (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote marks
Hi, I just noticed that in, you altered SR V "Schools" class (with straight quotes) to SR V “Schools” class (with curly quotes). Please don't do that, per MOS:QUOTEMARKS. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Convert/TonCwt to t
Hi, Please see Template talk:Convert/TonCwt to t Peter Horn User talk 20:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Named LNWR "Prince of Wales" Class locomotives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

ISBN templates
Hello. I noticed you had created a template Template:Rowledge-Engines of the LMS - I'm not sure on the usage of this - if this is a standard method could you add a note to ISBN on the creation of these things. Not sure if this is the same as Template:Cite isbn which alos creates a cire book link. Thanks.
 * It's a quick, and consistent way to add references to relevant articles. See the explanation at the top of Category:Rail transport book citation templates — Iain Bell (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (List of Portugese locomotives and railcars) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating List of Portugese locomotives and railcars, Iain Bell!

Wikipedia editor TheMagikCow just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"A very good article! Have you entered this for reviewing? Could you get one more source?"

To reply, leave a comment on TheMagikCow's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Portuguese locomotives and railcars, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MTE, Vulcan and Evra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for the Sri Lanka rail navigation box !

Laniltm (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 

Template:0-8047-1731-1
If it's all right by you I was going to merge with ; per  they appear to be the same book, with the same publication year and the same number of pages. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only problem I forsee is needing to accomodate more than one ISBN – the one I created was for the hardback edition on acid-free paper – I don’t know how many other editions have been released and what differentiates them. Regards — Iain Bell (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the ISBN that you give in a ref should be that of the edition which you actually consulted. No others are necessary. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (Love that there's a template for that) I think so long as the content and page numbers correspond the ISBNs are fungible. Where they potentially aren't I've seen different versions of the template created. Near as I can tell these two are the same for reference purposes. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Gas turbine locomotives of France
Category:Gas turbine locomotives of France, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

George Cross
You are commended on your work on the George Cross. You might be surprised that the VC & GC website gives a total of 414 awards. The most recent published reference is the three volume 'VC and GC: a complete history' which was published by the VC & GC Association in 2013. The ISBN for 'One step further: those whose gallantry was rewarded with the George Cross' is for Book A, the first of the nine books covering all GCs at the time. The Medal Yearbook by Token Publishing is an annual with the 2017 edition due out later this month. I question external links on list articles but in this case the Canadian website is defunct and the New Zealand list adds nothing to the table even it had mentioned that the award to Guthrie was the most recent award to a civilian. The GC used to be called the 'civilian VC' but for the UK no civilian has been awarded the GC in 40 years. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:1-878887-01-7
Proposed for deletion. A new template with a name that reflect current policy has been created --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphenniel (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And I de-prodded it. See WP:PROD, fifth paragraph: PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files not on Commons. Proposed deletion cannot be used with templates. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Locomotives_of_the_Southern_Railway
Hi, I saw you added a lot of information to Locomotives_of_the_Southern_Railway back in 2011. Do you happen to know where you got this information from? I'm trying to match up this information with a serialized article in "Locomotive, Railway Carriage and Wagon Review" and finding that some of the information on the page is conflicting or incorrect. (e.g. Eagle- and Falcon-class, the magazine combines and describes as identical apart from driving wheel diameter; and for the listed Gem-class the magazine states wheel configuration 0-6-0 for no. 57-59 as opposed to the 2-4-0 listed on the page). Any light you can shed would be appreciated. —Hawke666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the info came from
 * which is generally reliable, and not from
 * which has a number of problems. Bradley later produced a multi-volume set that was even better than his 1960s pair. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * which has a number of problems. Bradley later produced a multi-volume set that was even better than his 1960s pair. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * which has a number of problems. Bradley later produced a multi-volume set that was even better than his 1960s pair. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1-878887-01-7
Template:1-878887-01-7 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

MGWR Class D
Hi, just to comment I may add/change some content to the article at some point in the near future and as you have contributed to it in the past you may wish to review or comment on it. See Talk:MGWR_Class_D for further information. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the Category:Midland Great Western Railway locomotives. I have enhanced the MGWR Class 7 article to emphasise the source Shepherd on p123+p131 specifically states R&W Hawthorn, Leith. My sprint on wikipedia trains and MGWR locomotive articles is essentially over but I may do tweaks and may do a little on the Dublin Sligo line at some point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Northern Pacific Railway logo.png
Thank you for uploading File:Northern Pacific Railway logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LNWR Newton Class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phaeton ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/LNWR_Newton_Class check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/LNWR_Newton_Class?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International (GN train), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Star ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/International_%28GN_train%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/International_%28GN_train%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger of List of Indian locomotives with locomotives of India
Hello Sir, The reason that I created List of Indian locomotives is to make sure that both a list type and descriptive type article exists. I initially started List of Indian locomotives in the locomotive india but it wouldn't fit in. So what should I do ?--Hdmanohar (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for merge, since it looked like a duplication; but on reflection Locomotives of India is a large article (it's a large subject) and is a bit of mess. You could re-write it, so that is is just an overview article with several “Main article:” links (use ) that point to other (new) articles, such as “List of diesel locomotives of India”, “List of electric locomotives of India”, “List of steam locomotives of India”. As List of Indian locomotives only list diesel locomotives, you could rename it and then move the electric and steam locomotives to articles of their own.
 * Smaller articles are easier to write, reference, and maintain. Just be bold. Hope this helps — Iain Bell (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

List of railway stations in Colombia
Hi Iain - I wasn't aware that this article existed until you tagged its talk page with the Colombia WikiProject a few days ago. I've lived in Bogota for over a decade now, and although trains aren't really my thing, I'm familiar enough with the local transport system and the stations, and I'm thinking this list article should be deleted. It basically seems to consist of a list of stations that operated in Bogota and its surroundings 67 years ago (about half of which no longer exist), which is just a duplicate of the list at Bogota Savannah Railway. The remainder of the article is pretty vague, mentioning some other towns and departments (the equivalent of an English county) without being very specific about actual stations.

The article is correct in saying that there are currently no passenger services at all in Colombia, and hence none of these stations are in use for services other than goods and coal transport, save for five stops on the Bogota Northern Line (Ferrocarril del Norte) which are used for a tourist train running at weekends from Bogotá to the salt cathedral at Zipaquirá. So I'm not sure what this list is aiming for... if it's stations currently used for passengers, that's zero... if it's a list of all the station buildings in the country, well, there are/were hundreds of them, not just in Bogota and its surroundings, and most of the buildings still exist. But most of the track throughout the country has been removed, so most of these buildings exist without any rail track near them, and some have been converted into museums, municipal buildings or other uses. So is there any point in listing railway stations that have not functioned as such for decades, and many of which are abandoned and delapidated?

As I said, all the relevant information in this list article is already in either the Bogota Savannah Railway article, or the Rail transport in Colombia article, so I don't see much reason for this separate article to exist. But as I'm not a rail enthusiast, I thought I'd run it by you first and see what you think. The Bogota Savannah article is certainly worth keeping and expanding as a historical article, and three of its lines still have the existing track: the Western, Northern and Northeastern lines, and in fact the first two lines are going to be renovated over the next decade for the planned RegioTram light railways, so they are still very relevant. Richard3120 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I only discovered it while trying to reduce the assessment backlog on WikiProject Trains (it was listed as a stub!). I have no emotional attachment to the article, so feel free to be bold. You could rename it as "List of former railway stations in Colombia" and expand it, or you want to mark it up as a Proposed deletion, I won't mind. – Iain Bell (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks – I know there are many other "List of railway stations in xxxx" articles on Wikipedia, but the key is that those are all in countries with operating rail networks and working stations carrying passengers... I'm not convinced of the usefulness of a list of repurposed, abandoned and derelict railway stations, and I can't see where I would find a list of every station that ever existed in Colombia.
 * I guess I do take an interest in the transport network because Bogota is the size of London, but it's the largest city in the whole of the Americas without a metro system, and consequently the traffic problem here is one of the worst in the world, so anything that will improve that can only be a good thing. The main station in Bogota is quite impressive (you can see a picture on the Spanish Wikipedia at ) but sadly almost entirely empty and unused due to the lack of passenger trains, and although when it was built a century ago it was on the edge of the city, today it is very much in the centre and in a part of town which is pretty shabby and noisy, and completely unappealing to tourists and anyone wanting to repurpose the building. Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited KkStB Class 112, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compound.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Alsace-Lorraine A 3 moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Alsace-Lorraine A 3, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

DR Class V 60 moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, DR Class V 60, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Dangling ref
Hi Iain, I have been working on fixing dangling references that have no corresponding sources, and it appears you added a ref to Ajax (locomotive) in this edit. Do you know the source? For now, I have hidden the ref. Let me know if you need any assistance if you do know the source! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for finding my error – its a pity I didn't notice it back in 2016 when I created the page! – Iain Bell (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's all good, I only noticed because of Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, which I am steadily going through. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Alsace-Lorraine A 3
Hello, Iain Bell. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alsace-Lorraine A 3, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to help add to certain pages
Hi. These following drafts need to be taken care of. I would add info to them myself, but I don’t know these engines that well. I’ve been trying to ask experts like you to try and finish them off. You do not have to edit all of them. Just at least the ones about locos you do know about. Draft:Polson Logging Co. 2 Draft:Dardanelle and Russellville Railroad 8 Draft:Canadian Pacific 1201 Draft:St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway 5 Draft:Wilmington and Western 58 Draft:Wilmington and Western 98 Draft:Virginia and Truckee 11 Reno Draft:Virginia and Truckee 12 Genoa Draft:Virginia and Truckee 21 J.W. Bowker 23.169.64.51 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Seaboard Air Line Railroad images


A tag has been placed on Category:Seaboard Air Line Railroad images indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

International (GN train)
Hi, in International (GN train) should "Strauss 1988" actually be "Strauss 1998"? DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thank you for spotting this. I have fixed the six offending calls. — Iain Bell (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Davies-MidiPOLocoList
Template:Davies-MidiPOLocoList has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-1
Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Maine Central Railroad images


A tag has been placed on Category:Maine Central Railroad images indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Louisville and Nashville Railroad images


A tag has been placed on Category:Louisville and Nashville Railroad images indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)