Talk:Port Talbot Railway 0-8-2T (Sharp Stewart)

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.

This article lacks references.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Rename article?[edit]

As the Barry Railway Class H was also a Sharp Stewart 0-8-2T, I suggest this article be re-named. I suggest Port Talbot Railway 0-8-2T (Sharp Stewart). At the same time, I suggest that Cooke 0-8-2T be re-named Port Talbot Railway 0-8-2T (Cooke). Biscuittin (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was looking at this very issue the other day and was almost WP:BOLD. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I think we might also re-name Stephenson 0-6-2T as Port Talbot Railway 0-6-2T (Stephenson). Biscuittin (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most loco article names begin with the railway company, except for generic designs such as the products of EMD, so that's fine by me. After all, we have LMS Royal Scot Class where nobody else had a Royal Scot class... --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello Redrose64. There have not been any objections. Is it OK with you if I make the changes, as above? Biscuittin (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Should we now add these locos to Template:GWR Locomotives? Biscuittin (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That template is too darn crowded as it is. I'd like it confined to true GWR locos; we can have a separate template for the locomotive-owning companies amalgamated with (AD, Barry, Cambrian, Cardiff, Rhymney, TV) or absorbed by (BM, BPGV, CMDP, GV, LMM, MSWJ, N&B, PT, P&M, RSB, SHT, SWM) the GWR in 1922-24. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds like a good idea. Biscuittin (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a navbox, {{GWR absorbed locos 1922 on}}, so far it's only on this article. The Barry, Rhymney and Taff Vale rows are pinched straight from {{GWR Locomotives}}; the other rows are from what I could find under Category:Great Western Railway locomotives. All the group names are there; several don't show because the related |listn= is blank. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a good start. Biscuittin (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started adding your navbox to the articles. Biscuittin (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. Biscuittin (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a page GWR absorbed locos 1922 on for locos which do not yet have individual pages. Biscuittin (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]