Talk:British Rail Class 99 (locomotive)

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Why the rename?[edit]

Why has the word Stadler been added to the name of this page? The loco page is the primary page and shouldn't need differentiation. If it is felt necessary to distinguish it from the ships page than it shouldn't be the builders name as that won't necessarily be obvious to the non-specialist reader. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to British Rail Class 99 (train) as that is more of a sensible title than Stadler User:Dudleybus User talk:Dudleybus 15:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced it needs a suffix as without it conforms with all the other loco classes (Class 70 excepted but both versions were locos). Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, I was trying to make the best out of a bad situation to be fair by renaming it from Stadler to train User:Dudleybus User talk:Dudleybus 17:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, I would be arguing that page moves should be agreed by consensus on the talk page before being carried out, especially when there's already a discussion in progress, as there was here. Danners430 (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any further moves will need to be via WP:RM, as I've move protected the article at Admin level. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This article really could do with more in-depth references. It currently contains three separate references, all of which were published on the same date and are clearly just reworked versions of the original press release. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, it is unlikely that any exist. The order being placed has been mentioned in multiple sources, both on and off-line, but none offer any more detail than what is already included in the article, i.e. they too are just rehashing what is in the original press release. Feature articles will no doubt come, but probably not until they are at an advanced stage of construction in a couple of years, so there is no point in hat noting the article for more citations when they don't exist. By way of a similar example, in its early days the Class 69 article was fairly thin and then expanded once they began to be delivered. Beetherg (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the hatnote is there to act as a reminder that more references are needed and should be added once available. Thus it should stay in place. Please do not remove again - you don't own the article. It is not a slur on your editing skills or competence in any way, it is a valid maintenance template. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a hatnote that states: The article needs more cites for verification at this point is unnecessary as everything is cited and not the intended use of the hatnote. That hatnote would be appropriate if there was either uncited text or cites of dubious quality. I could triple the number of cites, but none offer any more insight than those already provided. The article has already been footnoted as: being a stub, you can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Ideally the article would be more expansive, but at this stage of the reporting cycle, feature articles that will offer this don't exist. Unless of course you are certain more expansive cites do exist in which case the Expand section template would be more appropriate. Where did I suggest that I own the article? Beetherg (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{More citations needed}} isn't a hatnote, it's a cleanup banner. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still excessive at this stage. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the When to use section of Template:More citations needed: This template indicates that the article needs additional inline citations. This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to spport the material currently in the article. Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material, even if all the material is supported by a single citation. Last sentence makes it pretty clear that the template should not be used in this instance. Beetherg (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]