Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm sorry to have this disagreement. This article is essentially, like any other on steam locomotives, a historical one. That's only the historical details should go into it. Preservation is mentioned of course, but after information such as service details, withdrawal dates, etc. That's what you would find in a professional standard book, even one written after

The main difference is that this engine did not run in BR service. Furthermore, the replica has its own article into which technical details, etc, can go. --Tony May (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Which era a locomotive runs in is irrelevant. What books that have not even been printed yet might say is irrelevant. What you personally want to be called a Peppercorn A1 is irrelevant. Given this situation is unique, what occurs in other class articles is irrelevant. This is not a replica, this is the 50th member of the class. They replicated the design to create a new member of the class, they did not replicate an existing class member as an act of preservation. The clue is in the number. This position is supported by

reliable primary and secondary sources. The actual differences between the original 49 and the belated 50th are clear enough in the article to the reader without your edits. If you disagree, follow the proper procedure and seek a third opinion, do not edit war to restore your personal opinion as you are already doing. If you revert the sourced version again without any sources to back up your position, I will have to issue you with a 3RR warning. MickMacNee (talk

) 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, really it's not. I see no reason why This is the same reason why, for example, there are seperate tables of named engines containing those named in service and those named in preservation. This is why the replica Iron Duke or replica Rocket are not counted as amongst the originals. Thank you for your understanding. Tony May (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PS please cite your sources that show it would be considered to be the fiftieth member by historians. That an additional replica is preserved is well noted in the article. Considering it as the fiftieth is original research. I know it's new and exciting but it's really not original, and I'm afraid there was no real 61603. Tony May (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also other replicas:

Iron Duke, Stephenson's Rocket, GWR 4300 Class, Sans Pareil Planet (locomotive); they are all considered separately. Don't get me wrong 61603 is a wonderful machine, but it is clearly not an BR machine. Sorry if I am being a bit forthright, but the issue is fairly clear. Tony May (talk

) 22:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, despite your claim, judging by primary and secondary sources, it is not original research to state it is the 50th Peppercorn A1. Whatever you want to classify it as, without a source, it remains unverified opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional source just found: the

IMechE - lecture will cover the history of the Peppercorn Class A1s, the design and manufacturing of the 50th A1 Tornado and its first 6 months of operation in main line service. MickMacNee (talk

) 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, and was it ever taken into BR stock? No. To put it with the other machines is patently absurd. I forgot, btw, the other replicas. They're also building a new Patriot, -- what are you going to have there, two (4)5551s? Std 2 tank 84030 will really be 78059 rebuilt - what are you going to put the build date as there? It is clearly better to split than lump. By lumping you just confuse things. The replica (and it is a replica, even a next in sequence replica) adequately covered in the article. I ask you to seriously reconsider. Tony May (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not reconsider when the only justification you have is your opinion. It is not a replica, the fact that it is is your own opinion. There is no reason to split, you cannot seriously be suggesting people are so stupid as to think that despite all the explanatory wording in the article backed by sources, that just because it is included on the end of a table and in the specs that the old Darlington works must have remained oper for 40 years just to roll out a 50th modified loco for BR.

I haven't examined the other projects, and

other stuff is not relevant in so few cases anyway, certainly not when it is used to overrule locally sourced information to that article. But if I ever edit their articles, I am sure that as in this case, anything regarding their status that can be sourced will stand over anybody's personal opinion. MickMacNee (talk

) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not my opinion it is clear historical fact. Let me repeat this: 60163 was not built by BR. It was never taken into stock by BR. Ergo it is not a BR engine, and should not be listed with the others. It really is that simple. Furthermore, consistency is clearly important, as is making sure that information is accurate and succinct. I'm sorry if you can't see this and want to bully your way forward. Tony May (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BR has nothing to do with it. There will be no source from the BR days that can refute the fact that today, sources consider 60163 the 50th Peppercorn A1. Even given the historical facts, the information is perfectly accurate, unless as I said you think people are so stupid as to think there could be a 40 year gap in production of the same machine, despite the numerous directions otherwise in the article. Whatever you think is important to the article is irrelevant without providing sources to state that Tornado is not the 50th Peppercorn A1 locomotive. That's the way it is. As you are now resorting to personal attacks while not bringing anything else to the table, I think we're done here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course BR has everything to do with it. They were BR engines. Stock lists are very important, a quick glance at that makes it look like there were 50 engines in this class when there were 49. The replica was constructed 40+ years after the last one was scrapped! Take a look at any Ian Allan stockbook from before 1967 (when steam ended on the Eastern Region). I can also see little point in carrying on repeating myself. Tony May (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel quite confident that nobody would be confused by this article if they spent more than 5 seconds reading it. I have no idea why you think a book from 1967 is going to shed any light on the subject at all, unless you think its athors were mind readers and knew for certain that nobody would ever build a 50th in the A1P class. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like being misrepresented Mr MacNee. Of course, I do not expect the author of a genuine stock list to have a crystal ball. I expect the stock list to be accurate and identical to the genuine stock list. As it was when they were in BR stock. I have already explained this at great length the reasons why it should not be listed. Perhaps you would care to read them again? Tony May (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your argument has not changed since your first revert, and you have resumed edit warring again. You are removing sourced material in favour of opinion. Do not revert again without providing a source. You have been warned twice now. If you simply wait 24 hours to game the system as you just did, I am sure this will be taken into account. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote:

"new locomotive representing an evolution of the Peppercorn A1 design"

If it's an evolution, surely it should be called A1/1 or A1/2. Biscuittin (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but it never has been by reliable sources. For wikipedia to come to that not unreasonable conclusion and then state it as fact would be

original research MickMacNee (talk

) 00:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, getting back to the central point here: Had it been an BR-ER engine, it may well have been given a classification. However, Tornado is a non-exact replica and not an original engine. Hence it was never numbered by BR, and never classified by them either. As a final note, the Great Northern rebuild was classified A1/1. --Tony May (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And to reiterate, what you think it is is not relevant, if disputed by sources. If you can find a source stating Tornado is an A1/2 or an A1/3 or an A1/New or whatever, that would honestly be fantastic. Personally, I've seen nothing even coming close to doing that, let alone disputing its status as a Pepp A1. We can all interpret historic (or even current) class practices to then say what Tornado is, buts its all irrelevant without sources. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a good example of what would be

original research (disallowed) v. what is mere observation (allowed). Apparently some have difficulty telling them apart. Tony May (talk

) 00:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article perfectly represents the observations of several current sources. Asserting that a list of Peppercorn A1 locomotives compiled in 2008 would not include Tornado is what is original research, being as it is totally unsupported by sources. MickMacNee (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when did it enter BR stock? Clearly it is better to deal with it separately. Also, please don't change the table format. Tony May (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is only a BR stock list if you want to assert your personal opinion that it is. Your idea of what is 'clearly' fact has no legitimacy on this article, especially when you ignore the advice of third parties and of sources. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether Tornado is, or is not, the 50th member of the class is a matter of opinion, not of fact. I therefore think the heading "Tornado - 50th member of the class" is inappropriate. I suggest shortening the heading to "Tornado" and putting in the text a statement that some people regard it as the 50th member of the class. Biscuittin (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources disagree. MickMacNee (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources are statements of opinion. Biscuittin (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources are verifiable. Your opinon is not. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

An opinion does not become a fact simply because it is written down. Biscuittin (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with the Wikipedia foundation, as that is a core principle of the encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I agree that there are sources which state that Tornado is the 50th member of the class. What I do not understand is why you regard these sources as incontrovertible. Biscuittin (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you haven't refuted them? MickMacNee (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It was never taken into BR stock. Hence it shouldn't be listed in the BR stock list. Tony May (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no end to this dispute so I have added a "Controversy" section to the article. Biscuittin (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Look, I understand where you are coming from, but on wikipedia, you are never going to make a 'controversy' section stick as encyclopoedic fact if your sources are 'some enthusiasts think...' It's just not going to happen. MickMacNee (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough on this point I agree with him. However, the replica should still be dealt with separately, as already explained at length above. Tony May (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

'some enthusiasts think...' is perfectly true and verifiable. There are two of them on this page. Is Mr MacNee claiming that Mr May and I do not exist? Biscuittin (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What Mr MacNee seems to be saying is that nobody is allowed to disagree with him. Biscuittin (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have said already I can see where you are coming from. But what you or I think is not

principle of wikipedia, it is not something that is open to interpretation at all. MickMacNee (talk

) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Biscuittin (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, it's at

WP:EAR#LNER Peppercorn Class A1. --AndrewHowse (talk

) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be remembered that this is an encyclopedia not a railway fan boy site, I dont see why Tornado can not be added to the list of engines it is clear from the text and the context that it is a new engine. A reader seeing 60163 and listed as a A1 would be confused if they could not find it in the list. It appears that being the 50th member has been referenced and as long as it is a reliable source I dont see the problem. If you are concerned that it gives a wrong impression then if you can find a reliable source that says 50th member is disputed then that could be added to balance the statement. We have to remember that what is required is verifiable and reliable sources not opinion or original research. MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is indeed subtle, and lost on people, but as I have explained at length it is an important one. Tony May (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To MilborneOne: I think references are irrelevant because they can only be used to establish facts. The claim that 60163 is the 50th member of the class is an opinion (of the A1 Trust) not a fact. Biscuittin (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten a lot of this article to partly sidestep most of the above, partly to copyedit (and spelling).

Now, unfortunately, in an attempt to support his point of view, MacNee introduced some references and text with the aim of supporting his view. Unfortunately it did not make for great content. FWIW, I have no doubt it is of the same type (though maybe not the same class), and agree it is not an exact replica, but neither is it an original engine either. The section should be kept relatively short, with most of the in the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado, which is a great article mostly written by MacNee, and I'm sure the issue is very close to his heart and I'm also sure were all very grateful for that.

I suspect MacNee will revert to his version, but I'd ask him to work off this version if at all possible, and see if there is anything left which he thinks should still be included. --Tony May (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Still think Tornado should be on the list of engines as it takes more room explaining why it is not there. Also the term BR stock list is probably not needed most readers dont have a clue what it means it is just a list of engines and should be changed back to the original title Names of Peppercorn A1 locomotives or something similar. I also think that the text on Tornado could be reduced to a few lines as it has its own article with all the relevant detail - no need to repeat it here. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened the section as you suggest. Please see also my note in the previous section of the talk page about the distinction between facts and opinions. Biscuittin (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have reverted, because as I see it, this was not a compromise version at all, but by and large a wholesale reapplication of changes that are opposed by sources and other editors (plural). Simply, multiple people have stated the changes are not needed, because to both the layman and the expert, this article is perfectly understandable. Quibbling about the fact that the list of locomotives should actually be a BR stock list is almost irrelevant to the point of pure pedantry, the scope for confusion when considering the article as a whole is negligable. And trying to get wikipedia articles to resemble printed books supercede by events is also not the primary goal of wikipedia.

Sure, people can argue that in their opinion it should have been called a Peppercorn A1/1, or that it is built 40 years later so it should never have been called the 50th in the class or given a BR number, but the fact remains, that is all personal opinion. What is paramount to the article, is to reflect what sources say. The fact is, per NPOV, we do not go around 'copyeditting' articles to match our preferred personal opinions if the changes dispute sourced information. But that leaves the door open to anyone who actually has a counter indicative source to actually add it, which is a standard wikipedia practice pointed out to Tony May now by three people. If readers have doubts at the veracity/authenticity of cliams made, as per normal practice, the full source details for the article information is provided for them to make up their own minds.

As for shortening the specific Tornado section, I disagree on that, based on the fact that all the detail in that section relates specifically to the motivations, features and differences as it relates to the other 49 described here, so it is of value to have it here for comparison, rather than expect a reader to pick it all out from the lengthy Tornado article which has lots of information not related to this article at all. Also, where it is not totally off topic, the basic principle on wikipedia is abundancy, not brevity. MickMacNee (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the criticisms made by Mr MacNee apply equally to him. I have explained why sources are irrelevant because they relate to an opinion, not a fact. He seems to believe that his opinion is more valid than others and that he is the sole judge of what is a "good" version of the article. Biscuittin (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the claim that the article is easily understandable applies with Tornado listed with originals applies to both versions, which makes that argument totally redundant. Indeed, it is slightly clearer separately, but also much more accurate. Tony May (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just repeating your personal opinion time and again does not make it true, does not refute the sources, and does not make your opinion any more relevant than the three people who disagree with you. Frankly, how can even claim your single personal opinon is more accurate when you want to call it a replica, when that description is contradicted by both primary and secondary sources, just bemuses me. I have no idea why you don't even see that is 100% contrary to wikipedia policy. And frankly, your editorialising additions such as "obviously it never entered BR stock" [1], therefore it wasn't part of the original class, therefore it can't be in the table of locomotives, because I have chosen to label it a BR stock list, is a total insult to the reader's intelligence. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a single personal opinion - I agree with Mr May. You may be technically right about Wikipedia policy but I think you are

See the table in this page: [2]

Also see the technical information [3], in which the alteration made to the replica is missing.

I think it is quite appropriate that railway enthusiast who wrote that page sees fit to separate them as would any railway historian. Tony May (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From the first link - Have you ever wondered why one of the original Peppercorn class A1s .... So just what exactly is your point here? That there were 49 original Peppercorn A1s is not in dispute, the article states it quite clearly. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My point, as has always has been it that they should be treated separately. That's the only way of sensibly doing it when all factors are considered properly. Tony May (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your point has always been that the article should reflect your personal opinion, despite what anybody else tells you, or what sources say. For a rebuttal of this perception, if you honeslty still don't get it, just re-read everything above. MickMacNee (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No. That is not an opinion it is an observation. As we have discovered "Anyone else" means you and "sources" where the whole class is discussed - [4] [5] always discuss them separately. This is the most logical way of doing it. Have you actually read any books on railway history? --Tony May (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Had you done as requested and actually looked above, you will see there are two other human editors on wikipedia who don't share your 'obsevation'. We can discuss railway books if you like (As with every other point already responded to many times now, I have already pointed out why the format of historic books is pretty irrelevant to wikipedia), we can discuss what sometimes happens when editors only ever edit in one low traffic area, and do not then gain the requesite experience of what is the accepted common practice across any subject area of wikipedia, where established policies and practices take precedent over your personal likes and dislikes. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My point, and I think Mr May's as well, is that the claim that Tornado is the 50th member of the class is controversial so the article should present both sides of the controversy to provide a Neutral Point of View. You seem determined to pretend that no controversy exists. Biscuittin (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. --Tony May (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the WP:NPOV policy. Your idea of representing controversy does not equate to 'represent individual editors opinions'. The article actually complies with that policy as it cites the wheres/whos/whens of the claims being made, and lets the facts speak for themselves. Tony May on the other hand seeks to specifically go against the policy with uncited editorialsing additions to support his point of view, which is not representing anything but his personal opinion. By all means tag the article as having a disputed neutrality per NPOV. All that will happen is that when nobody produces a source to illustrate a controversy even exists in sources, it will be removed. NPOV is for treating sources equally, not editors opinions equally. MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Mr MacNee's point about references probably relates to this from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true".

However, this policy is not being applied consistently. There is a dispute at Talk:Water Fuel Museum where the reverse argument is being deployed. The pro-water fuel lobby has produced numerous references to support its case but the anti-water fuel lobby is arguing that these references should be disregarded because they are "unscientific". Biscuittin (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with MacNee's references is that they were specifically cherry picked to support his spurious point of view. As a result, they were all trying to make the same point and the prose was terribly written. If they are on the 60163 replica then they should be in

that article, which can be considered a subarticle. This article should mostly be about the original 49 engines that formed the class. As a result, the section on 60163 should be a simple, short summary. Tony May (talk

) 23:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have said already I will accommodate any contrary source you find. You have provided none. The only terribly written prose are sentences phrased to treat the reader as an idiot, of the sort "obviously it never entered BR stock", something that is as plain as day in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a source to prove that there is a controversy. There are hundreds of words on this page which prove that there is a controversy. Biscuittin (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Check your facts, that is exactly what you cannot do. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends whether you prefer to rely on bureaucracy or common sense. Biscuittin (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have provided appropriate references where they are appropriately discussed separately. [6][7] but since they do not agree with MacNee's opinion he has dismissed these out of hand. Tony May (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion (and I agree that it is an opinion) is that Tornado is a new and unique locomotive. It is based on a Peppercorn Class A1, but it is not a Peppercorn Class A1, so it should be treated separately. This practice is already well established in Wikipedia. For example, the

In the sense that it was LNER/BR that decided on their own classification system, and this locomotive was never owned by BR (or LNER), that is true. The analogy is not good however, as both the classes you mentioned were owned by BR and were classified by BR. To be truthful, we are going round in circles here, and slightly arguing past each other. The important point is that 60163 should obviously be treated separately as it is separate chronologically. Why chronology is important has been explained (I hope). Thanks for your input though. Tony May (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We've already been through this. I can state categorically that Tornado is an A1/XXX, I can say it till I'm blue in the face on the talk page, it is totally and utterly irrelevant. Self-referencing wikipedia is also not an accepted practice. These are very basic principles of wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made a formal request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1. Biscuittin (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I expect I've done it wrongly (the instructions are too complicated for me to follow) but, if you are serious about resolving this dispute, perhaps you will help me out. Biscuittin (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It will likely be declined as you've jumped a step. You needed to file an article Request For Comment first. I have done so in the below section. MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over how to describe

Comment from MickMacNee

In the article, Tony May wishes to overly separate Tornado, a modern locomotive, from the original 49 locomotives. Namely, by not listing it on a list of locomotives, and by specifically factoring the page variously by changing headers and adding comments/superfluous wording. His justification for this appears to be in the main, his personal wish of how the article should look, but he also cites as a defence, the speculative assumption of what future printed books will look like. Biscuitin objects to certain opinions being presented as fact, namely that Tornado is the 50th Peppercorn A1. I will summarize my position here, referencing my preferred version of the page:

• The fact that Tornado is described as the "50th Peppercorn A1" is traceable to primary and secondary sources
• These sources clearly explain and justify why Tornado was given the next number in this class series, and gives the proper context of how these 'facts' are arrived at through proper verifiable references
• Contrary sources describing anything other than the above have been requested and are not forthcoming. The assertion from Biscuittin that the wording is controversial is simply on the unsourced evidence of this talk page. I remain fully open to discussing any kind of sourceable controversy/difference of opinion.
• The fact that there were 49 originals, and 1 new build, 50 years apart, is already very self evident and fully explained in the article, without Tony May's further changes. Removing Tornado from the table of locomotives is not only overkill, and rather insulting to the intelligence of the reader, but also frequently attracts good faith re-insertions of it from people unaware of Tony May's view of how this article should be
• Tony May wishes to implement, and explain, the difference using specific but badly worded terminology, such as the separation and explanations of 'stock lists' and British Rail numbering practices. The expert reader does not need this unnecessary verbiage, and this languauge is inaccessible to the novice reader. It also contains very bad editoralisations such as 'therefore, obviously....' to support his version.
• Passing comments from two other editors, MilborneOne in here, and AndrewHowse at the linked to Editor Assitance section, have echoed the positions that Tony May's favouring of unsourced opinion over verifiable content is not appropriate, and/or the article is accessible to the reader as it is.

MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Biscuittin

My main objection is to the heading "Tornado - 50th member of the class". This states, as a fact, that Tornado is the 50th member of the class. It is not a fact, it is an opinion of the A1 Trust. I think it is misleading to present an opinion as a fact. Mr MacNee has provided sources to the opinion but sources do not convert an opinion into a fact. Biscuittin (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Tony May

Note: Tony May originally posted some comments here for this particular Rfc. He has since moved this to a seperate sub page transcluding it here, while continuing to update it with regards to later comments made both on this page and based on comments made on other pages and at the mediation cabal page. It is now extremely long, and its content no longer corresponds chronologically with the timeline of this talk page, so I have therefore replaced it with a placeholder link to the sub-page's current version:

• User:Tony May/A1

MickMacNee (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The version of this page (and thus the form of Tony May's original comments) at the time when the discussion continued below, can be found in this permanent version link. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement with what Mr May says. I am particularly annoyed that Mr MacNee refuses to accept that there is a controversy about this article and relies on legalistic arguments. I think the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. Biscuittin (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

Biscuittin, please stop making these

continual slurs that I am merely wikilawyering. I am applying the relevant policies, that is what we do here. You are asserting things that are simply not true - to repeat, the fact two editors disagree on a talk page is categorically not classed as evidence of a controversy as it is defined for the purposes of the NPOV policy. If you think I am lying, there are many venues where you can go to get clarification on this very basic point. MickMacNee (talk

) 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, your view of what this article should be is a personal view. You have no more moral right to make this happen than anybody else has to disagree with you. Your version is opposed, and with some solid reasons for doing so. Your total disregard of this Rfc by making a reversion to your "better version" while it is ongoing is more damning of your attitude to wikipedia than anything else you have done so far. I realy do think that you are heading for a block purely on behavioural grounds (do not be mistaken that thinking, or even being, 'right' lends you any protection from having your ability to express your opinion forcibly removed from the process), and that is even with ignoring the accusations you post at the end.

Anyway, to (largely repeat previous points):

Your points on article flow/storytelling etc etc is pure conjecture, it has been rejected by other editors. Your split/lump point is largely irrelevant, the only thing you seek to split is the table entry. Do not try to pretend that the article is confusingly mixing article prose about old/new. The article is very clear on what was original and what is new. Your use of the A1 website to point out what is not even disputed, that there were 49 originals, was already addressed above. It brings nothing to the issue.

Your historians approach comment is not only a thinly veiled personal attack, it is also irrelevant. This was a unique project, the books about it have not even been written yet (and would still be subordinate and not superior with respect to any contrary editor opinion about content style). This locomotive never was an original, neither is it a replica or a restoration of an original. It is a brand new vehicle, and a Peppercorn A1. This is an opinion backed by sources (do 'professional railway historians' not write for magazines by the way?). That it was never a BR engine is not important given these basic facts, which are reflected with utmost clarity in the article. I have not claimed the provided sources in this respect are 'proof' of anything. What they are, is more relevant to the article than your personal likes/dislikes/wants/don't wants, or what you perceive as being 'professional'.

As for your comments about engineering, I am not even sure what you think they assert. Perhaps with all your eminent reading, you have glossed over the simple fact that many classes featured chronological design changes without ever changing the top classification. But this goes back to the central point here, had any actual source contended this was not an A1 but an A1X, or the A1 Trust itelf had made a new classification, then I would add it. I am not here to stamp the article with my opinion, whatever you seem to think you have proved about misquotations (nothing that I can actualy see). I am not here to

IMechE

, then I think that's just unintentionally hilarious on your part.

And you seem to want to invoke the example of what also happens in wikipedia itself. This is irrelevant. Firstly as already said, this is a unique situation. You are not comparing like for like, when for example an ex-operational locomotive is restored. Secondly, using other articles to support anything is a pointless exercise, it is not reliable or predictable. The only way this could be relevant is if there was an applicable wikipedia style guide. Having checked a long time ago to be sure I was not insulting other wikipedians by asserting my preferred approach over a past consensus, I know for a fact there is no relevant guide. So with that in mind, this ranks as possibly the least important factor in this dispute.

Now to address the only new point you have made, about the LNER encyclopoedia. Yes, it looks quite good. Does it have an accepted standing on wikipedia as being anything more than a website maintained by a single individual? (compared to say, sources in the article of standing such as the Railway Magazine?) If it does not, then sorry, you have no claim at all to apply whatever style decisions it takes over editors here.

You are correct, you are largely repeating yourself. As you have made no further points, and dismissed mine with simple handwaving, I see little reason in providing a response. The accusations you make of me, apply to yourself far more. How about waiting for others to read comments before demaning the last (and it seems the only) word? You have had your space to have your say and now you must have the last word where I explain mine. Tony May (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I will actually address the IMechE source because again you are reading a whole layer of interpretation into a very short sentence. What we have is not the lecture itself of course, but a very short (3 sentence) abstract. Indeed, I would not be surprised at all if the lecture took the format of two halves, the first on the 49 Peppercorn A1s and the second half on the replica. But again you are reading far too much into it to support what is your opinion. Tony May (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what false conclusions in the article have been asserted from the accurately quoted description? I think half the problem is, you are not even aware that the article does not say half the things you seem to think it does. Does it actually say it entered BR stock? No. Does it say BR issued it its number? No. Does it say the locomotive was classified by the LNER? No. It says what the sources support. Why don't you go to the lecture and ask their view of why they are clearly mistaken, or why it was not called an A1/X, or how it can be the 50th anything when there are only 49 based on the end customer and not the designation. Then, instead of using a crystal ball to support your edits based on what you are sure will happen, you might actually have something concrete to add to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are getting closer to the issue that this is about a way of dealing with the issue and not all this "original research" nonsense. I have already explained at length the best way of dealing with it. --Tony May (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to believe any assessment of what you think is "nonsense". You have in the last few minutes made two reverts at two different pages, citing

vandalism. If you can get the definition of this basic term on wikipedia wrong, then it is also likely you can do the same for commonly used terms such as original research, synthesis, unverified claims and crystal balling. MickMacNee (talk

) 10:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are edit warring, and removing valid content, and replacing it with a version that is at least a week out of date because it reflects your opinion. I apologise for being angered by your behaviour, I realise your edits are being made in good faith, but they are nevertheless nonsense and violate

WP:OWN. Tony May (talk

) 13:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And where you have again displayed your total lack of understanduing of wikipedia conventions, you have retrospectively modified your existing comments above after they were replied to. As part of this modification, you introduced a claim that I "removed valid information that I have added to the article" ..."for no reason". Well, you do not get away without making such comments without providing the

evidence, so please do that or retract it. And as above, a demonstration of validity does not come from your own mouth alone. I have just about had it with your multiple unsubstantiated comments on this page. MickMacNee (talk

) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration of my points, and not just reverting back to your version. The dispute is now reduced to some wording and one line in a table. I apologise for any mistakes I am making. I am editing my original comments to reflect any points you make, as I would prefer that to getting into a "who talks last wins"-style "debate" with you. Tony May (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr MacNee, I am not accusing you of lying. Do you understand the difference between the letter of the law (which is what you advocate) and the spirit of the law (which is what I advocate)? If no other editors intervene soon, I shall make a further request for formal mediation. Biscuittin (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea considering we are going round in circles.Tony May (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:WJBscribe#LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1. Biscuittin (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/LNER Peppercorn Class A1. Biscuittin (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Biscuittin, you have opened two different mediations, one with the Mediation Cabal here (which is what the talk page banner above links to), and one with the Mediation Committee, here, which you notified me of on my talk page. The Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee are two different things, with the cabal typpe usually occurring before the committee type. Whichever one you choose to pursue, you should also be aware they may purely be declined on the basis that Rfcs can be left open for 30 days. This one has run for 3 days so far.

But I will categorically not continue with mediation in good faith while Tony May games 3RR (watch for the timing of his next revert after he was warned for 3RR last), or labels his reverts as countering "vandalism" (and please don't dispute the definition of vandalism or accuse me again of lawyering for pointing it out, because the correct labeling of vandalism is again one of the basic aspects of wikipedia, flagrant abuse of which is blockable). I have demonstrated more than enough good faith by not pressing harder or earlier for behavioural blocks of Tony, or by not just ignoring this page completely. If he is actually willing to progress, then instead of empty promises, the most basic gesture will be his not reverting the page without consensus. He already has little of that, with 3 opinions

proveably opposing his personal preference. MickMacNee (talk

) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in any further discussion with you, Mr MacNee. I shall await the outcome of the mediation. Biscuittin (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think mediation is a good idea as a first step, and I urge all users to consider taking a deep breath, stepping back and negotiating properly. Tony May (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to negotiate. You are flat out uncivil, deceptive and disruptive. You do not answer the most basic points. You make false representations of your intentions (this comment [8] followed immediately by this revert [9]). You frequently make replies that do not even address the previous post [10] (usually when a point has been backed by a policy or basic wikipedia convention), or are just completely vague and/or incivil [11][12]. You alter past posts to change their meaning, after they have been answered in their original form[13], or even worse, change the version of comments that appear to then be endorsed by others [14]. I would warn anybody reading this page it has been altered. I am certainly not going to audit it to see what you have changed (read

WP:POINT. You do not understand basic wikipedia concepts such as original research. I have yet to find an addition of yours in here or elsewhere that was actually attributed to a source. Maybe this isn't needed when you just believe you are inherently right. You fail to answer a simple request to provide proof of an accusation of removal of content for no reason. You falsely label reverts as vandalism reversion [19] and copyediting [20], without even the defence of not having been told these do not qualify as either, dismissing valid warnings as vandalism [21] and gaming 3RR, and going against consensus (myself, MilborneOne and AndrewHouse to enforce a "better version". Again, appearing quite deliberate you actively ignore the presence of these other opinions despite having been mentioned many times [22]). I gave you one last chance to show you were acting in good faith above, you ignored it. So, all in all, why should anybody negotiate with you about anything? MickMacNee (talk

) 04:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion to content rather than behaviour, because if you try to make it about behaviour you hardly come out of it well at all. I have made all my points above regarding content. You have not provided an adequate response - could you please try to do this? Tony May (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Please try to keep the discussion to content" and then "have not provided an adequate response". You are unbelievable. I am not obliged to try to continue to try and satisfy you, when you refuse to acknowledge replies and ignore basic points. I have adequately responded to any content issues you think you have raised many times already, I am now merely protecting the consensus demonstrated for the content of this page, against changes wrongly described as copyedits. If you disagree with that, the procedures for you to follow are and always were, very clear. Willfull ignorance, deception, misdirection and edit warring, are not, and never were, acceptable as 'discussion of content'. So there is nothing more to discuss regarding content in the manner you think this is supposed to happen. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is why we are going for mediation. I am willing to be reasonable, make my points and consider yours. You are apparently not willing to give me that courtesy. I apologise for any misunderstandings and getting angry at your absurdities. Tony May (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You want to talk about absurdities? You just added an accuracy tag, with the edit summary 60163 was *never* a BR engine - so why is it in the stocklist?. The current version of the article does not even have a BR stock list, it has a list of locomotives. The current version of the article does not even say it was ever a BR engine. The only person who wants to make that list a BR stock list is you, against consensus. You have been asked to provide a single source or consensus view that on wikipedia a list of locomotives on a class page must correspond to a stock list without exception, you have failed. (Sure, you have shown that some people, including the source you also want to ignore, when listing the original 49 BR locomotives, shock horror, actually list the original locomotives. This fact does not actually support your rationale for converting this article list into a stock list of the original 49). You tell me where the current version of the article asserts Tornado was one of the original 49 locomotives? So, other than your insistence of needing to list original BR engines together to the exclusion of any other, you have failed to provide any source that refutes the classification of Tornado as a new build next in class Peppercorn A1, and thus the representation of it in the article as such. You have cited your 'knowledgable opinion', and cited other wikipedia articles you have edited to your personal view, but otherwise, to any accepted wikipedia standard, you have failed. You have attempted to change the article form its original version long ago to make it appear that your view is correct, supporting it with unencyclopoedic 'qualifications' and 'explanations' that are otherwise self evident to the expert/unnecessarily technical for the layman (the very term 'stock list' being a perfect case in point). The absurdity comes from your personal idea of what wikipedia should be, not what it is universally accepted that it is: an encyclopoedia whose style and content is set by consensus, supported by outside sources, not a paper based historical work beholden to any outside manual of style. If you feel really passionate about this, your true goal should be to edit the actual Wikipedia manual of style for train articles (it can be found

disruptive to make a point, and should have seen your privelage to make any edits removed long ago. MickMacNee (talk

) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As a newcomer, the above discussion is fascinating. For what it's worth, I do not believe that Tornado can be considered anything other than a replica, and therefore not a part of the original series of engines. For starters it was built at a different time and using greatly different techniques. More importantly, the people that built the original and the replica are a generation apart. Using the car as a comparison, it is like comparing a original to a kit-car. The similarity betweent them starts and ends in the appearance. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On a point of order, the references [2], [3] and [4] that claim this locomotive to be the 50th are less than independent. Two of the three are from the A1 locomotive society that clearly has a large self interest in promoting (and marketting) this engine as being the 50th. This engine has been produced to make money, and hence I believe these sources cannot be used to jusitfy this loco being the 50th as they do not meet any

WP:NPOV criteria. And before anyone gets upset, I strongly believe that where there is contention (as there clearly is), then all sources must also be NPOV. And the plain fact is that the sources from the A1 society mus be classed as POV. Bhtpbank (talk

) 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You put it better than I could have done. Biscuittin (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Having waded through the discussion above, may I offer my contribution. It seems to me that there are two main issues being contended. Firstly, whether or not Tornado is a replica of the original locomotives, or alternatively a continuation of the original class with modern variations. The second discussion appears to revolve around how the locomotive should be treated in relation to the original 49 locomotives. I will attempt to deal with each issue in turn.

Replica or not?

According to the compact Oxford English Dictionary online, a replica is defined as:

• replica

 • noun an exact copy or model of something, especially one on a smaller scale.

If there is a source that can be found stating that Tornado is an exact copy or scaled-version of a pre-existing locomotive, or possibly the original drawings, then the designation replica would be appropriate. I have not scoured the sources provided by the editors above, but it appears that one issue that is NOT contended is that Tornado is neither an exact copy nor a scaled-version.

Accepting, for the moment, that this rules out Tornado being a replica, what could it be? Definitions which may be appropriate include reproduction, follow-up, related or derived. To me the term "derived new build" would seem most appropriate.

If we can accept that Tornado is a "derived new build" locomotive, inspired by the original locomotives, then it seems logical that it should be referred to in the article, and that it is appropriate to describe the differences between the original class of locomotives and Tornado.

Member of class

Whether or not Tornado is a member of the same class as the original locomotives is a different question. The main contention here seems to be that the

Personally speaking I would consider that the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust could reasonably be accepted as an expert body in relation to this subject, although I agree that they could have a natural bias towards considering Tornado as part of the original class. I have had a search through the website of the National Railway Museum and found the following, which would seem to indicate that their director considers Tornado to be a recreation of the original class (and therefore by extension a member of it (using the logic that if he did not consider it a member of the original class it would be a creation and not a recreation) [23], [24], :

Andrew Scott, Director of the NRM, said: “ Hosting Tornado during her main line trials confirms the NRM’s position as the centre of all things rail. Not only was York the final home of the Peppercorn class A1s but the original drawings used to recreate this extinct class of steam locomotive are preserved by the NRM and without them this fantastic project, which has been over 18 years in the pipeline, would not have been possible. We’re very excited to see Tornado make an appearance in the NRM’s Great Hall next week - we are certain she will draw a lot of attention and attract many visitors to the Museum."[25] (my emphasis added)

I leave other editors to draw their own conclusions from the sources above. For what its worth, my view is that the evidence is marginal, but points to Tornado not being a replica of the original locomotives, but a derivative of them, and that experts in the field consider the locomotive to be a member of the class. As always though I stand to be corrected if anyone can dig out verifiable sources which clearly point one way or the other.

ColourSarge (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A good summary. Have you also looked at the mediation cabal page? I agree it is correct to separate the replica and 50th in class arguments. On the replica issue, Tony May has produced newspaper refs that describe it as a 'replica' (without expanding on what that means for its status in the class), which I am happy to reflect in the article. But on the 50th in class argument, the label replica is meaningless in the way he defines it - each member of the original class is a non-exact replica of the last in the way he defines it. Tornado is not the first instance of engineering developments advancing a class without changing the classification, the only difference is the time difference. Had BR continued into steam, Tornado is what their Peppercorn A1 class would have evolved into. That is the point the A1 Trust seek to make. Bear in mind, the Trust had the opportunity to make more radical advances to the design, truly taking it out of the territory of being of the same basic class design, but they chose not to, for risk/cost factors, but also because they would then not be preserving the Peppercorn A1 Class, but creating a new class. Also, the sources for it being 50th in class include Railway Magazine and the IMechE. I don't think they are open to any particular claims of bias, anymore that newspapers are open to accusations of innacurate reporting. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I think we're getting somewhere. I think the wording of the #Tornado section needs to be done very carefully to reflect this difference. And clearly should not be listed in BR stock. Tony May (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that something approaching an edit war has re-started at LNER Peppercorn Class A1. Why not wait for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12-05 LNER Peppercorn Class A1 to be completed? Biscuittin (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Full-blown edit war has resumed. Please stop it, both of you. I suspect somebody will give you a ban if you don't. Biscuittin (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Biscuittin, I am trying to hold back. I feel I trying to edit the article to clarify the situation and resolve this dispute, but I am not being allowed to edit the article MacNee

thinks apparently he owns. Tony May (talk

) 09:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how this article has reached B Class status. All of the references, and a large percentage of the text are all about the disputed "Tornado". Please can an experienced ediotr review the status this article as it is plainly not writeen in NPOV style, and has few references. Bhtpbank (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I think we've been failing to see the wood for the trees. Biscuittin (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User Bhtpbank, can you please reveal under which user name you have editted in the past? Everybody should be quite clear that anybody found to be using multiple accounts to falsely bolster the apparent position on an issue, are immediately blockable. See

WP:SOCK. MickMacNee (talk

) 15:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have edited piecemeal since the summer. but only decided to get a username in December. Please remember

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts against you, that's if others don't beat me to it. Bhtpbank (talk

) 07:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this, and seeing that you have been blocked in the past for non-wikipedia like behavior (you can edit you talk page, but I can still see the history), I now think that myself and Tony May require an immediate apology from you for this unfounded allegation. If you have evidence then use the procedure related to Sockpuppets. I expect an apology to be posted within the next 24 hours, else I shall be logging a Wikiquette complaint against you. Bhtpbank (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think I have hidden on my talk page (it is Tony May who selectively deletes warnings). Everything ever posted on my talk, including spurious complaints, is all preserved in the archive, totally unfettered by later adjustment of the chronology/content (again unlike Tony May). You won't be getting any apology from me. I am not sure what you think is aggresive about asking you to reveal your former identity, as you now admit what was obvious, you are not a new user. I should read WP:BITE? You should read WP:DUCK. You want to talk Wikiquette? A recent edit summary of yours: "get used to it". MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You have accused me (falsely, and without evidence) of "... using multiple accounts to falsely bolster the apparent position on an issue." I have NOT used multiple accounts, I edited anonymously (as is wholly permissible), but NEVER on this article. I was interested in seeing what was written about "Tornado" from seeing it in the media, and it stimulated my interest in the article. You clearly have a view that anyone not arguing with you is against you, and something to be

attacked. I have tried to put forward (as per this section) a reasoned argument, and been treated aggressively by you. 20:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs

)

The problem is that MacNee has, in response to my request to have the article written to be historically accurate expanded that section with selective quotation out of context in order to support his point of view. That is why it needs to be cleaned up. I can clarify that Bhtpbank is not my sockpuppet, since the is implied. Tony May (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is not B class, it cannot be whilst the majority of sections are unreferenced. Therefore I've reassessed it as C class. Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have twice removed this tag placed by Tony May. [26], [27]. I have requested that he explain the exact issues he has with the section, so that it can be editted appropriately. This tag is not appropriate if you are not willing to tell others specifically what you want to see 'cleaned up'. Similarly, if the issues are already covered by the ongoing mediation, then your reasons for placing it are disputed - placing tags is not an alternative to not gaining consensus in a disupte. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly explain the issue. The problem is that you have, since my first edit to this article, rewritten this in order to support your opinions. This has . There is a separate article on Tornado, its mention here should be brief as it was not a member of the original 49 engines which this article mainly covers. The section is presently too long, and consists of out of context quotations and misunderstandings. It could also do with a spellcheck too. Tony May (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It apparently being rewritten to support my opinions is disputed, and not solved by 'cleanup'. Your assertion that this page is only about the original 49 is also disputed, and not solved by 'cleanup'. If you are going to place tags, read the pages they point to. Sizewise, compared to the main article, it is perfectly sized in

summary style. It also only mentions details that are directly relevant to this article, so it has every right to be here. If it included things like trials at the GCR, you might have had a point (and you will note I removed such information when I rewrote it). Cleanup tags are not to be placed to garner support for your views of how an article should be which are disputed, tags are for obvious problems that anyone can see the issue and uncontroversialy fix. The talk page and ongoing mediation is the correct venue for the issues you are seeking to highlight with innappropriate tags. Your placement is tendentious. And as an aside, if you are seeing spelling errors, just fix them. We don't tag to highlight spelling errors. MickMacNee (talk

) 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The first five sections are unreferenced.
2. The sixth section is too long, including the title. Tornado would be quite adequate a title for that section, which just needs to have brief details of the history and construction of Tornado. I consider that Tornado is a class member, although a modern developement of the class. I'm not sure that the article on Tornado is at the right title, as it could be titled "British Rail Class 98 locomotive 98 863" as per its TOPS code.
3. The seventh section is unreferenced. Personally, I'm not sure it even needs to be in the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the length of section title. How is this [28]? The title actually represents an internal link. It cannot just be called Tornado as the internal links would be ambiguous to external links to the main article.

As for the length issue, see my comments directly above. I think the length is fine considering the length of the main article and the notability of Tornado. As such, details of the motivation of the Trust/details of construction that differ from the others/details about fixing the problems of the others, are all pertinent to this article. Consider if you will, for any details you would remove - how easy it is to find that same information in the main Tornado article? As a rule, on Wikipedia, we strive for information abundancy, not brevity (check the MOS).

As for a rename of the main article, I personally think 60163 Tornado would be fine and reflect WP:COMMONNAME, but I would say that any rename would need a proper RM. Move warring over article names is not advisable, given that it requires admin intervention to fix. MickMacNee (talk)

I agree completely on point 2. That's why it needs cleanup. This article should mostly be about the original engines, Tornado has its own separate article. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get permission of MacNee to edit the article. Would you mind helping with that? Might I humbly suggest that you read my comments at user:Tony May/A1#What exactly is Tornado?

I can provide about five references for the stock list without Tornado. I cannot find any with it included. I have no strong opinion on the name of the Tornado article, though it does presently match others on individual locomotives. --Tony May (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You cannot provide any source that tells Wikipedia how it should list locomotives. What you can do is state your opinion that Wikipedia should be laid out in the same way as books. That has nothing to do with citations. What you can do (and have not done so far) is provide a citation that Tornado is not a Peppercorn A1. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been aware of the three sided war over this article for some time now. I don't want to get involved, and I'm not going to edit the article myself as I don't want it cluttering up the related changes section of my Articles page (where I keep an eye on changes to articles I've edited).

Tony, if you can provide references, then do so. We are all supposed to be working together to create a better encyclopedia. The section on Tonado needs to be collaborated on to produce a section that has consensus. I was recently involved in a difference of opinion with another editor regarding a paragraph in the

talk page

. I posted my original paragraph, and the revised one, and proposed a new one. A bit of discussion and revision occurred, and a further revised paragraph that had the consensus of all involved was placed in the article instead of the revised one. Barnstars all round too!

Therefore, What I propose you three do is work together. Somebody needs to post the paragraph as it is now in a new section on this talk page, and underneath it post their proposed revision (taking into account comments above). Then it needs to be discussed, revised, rediscussed until everyone is happy, and the new section added to the article. An edit note can be put on the section whilst it is under discussion asking editors not to edit the section, but to go to the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

By a rough and ready comparison, the current Tornado section in here is one twentieth the length of the main Tornado artice in terms of text. In light of this, and my other replies re. length above, I will stongly refute any suggestion that this section should be trimmed for length reasons. If anything, it looks too long because there is insufficient information in this article about the rest of the class. I'm afraid you cannot compensate for that by removing clearly relevant and related information from that section. MickMacNee (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC). P.S. If I really wanted to bloat this article with irrelevant Tornado related info, I clearly could. And I could spam it with images too. But I haven't. I trimmed it to relevant material only, and expanded on that. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, expansion of the rest of the article will bring down the percentage. ¹/₂₀ is 5%. Tornado represents 2% of the class, thus the section could be said to be 2½ times too long at the moment. Re images - there is nothing wrong in having a photo of each individual loco in the list of class members. Those comments above about collaborating on the section apply to you and Biscuittin too. Any of the three of you can start the process, it doesn't matter who it is as long as you put your heads together and work out a consensus. Threatening to disrupt Wikipedia is not going to get you anywhere fast except maybe a block. If the informal meditation process doesn't work, then this could go to a RFC against all three of you, with various sanctions being imposed up to and including page bans and blocks. Do you really want that to happen?.Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening to disrupt Wikipedia, I was pointing out what material could (and before I rewrote it, already was) in the article that did not belong here. You assertion that details about Tornado should account for 1/50th of this article's text is pretty simplistic, if only from a notability perspective. I can't take a comparison like that seriously. And I am sure nobody would agree 50 images in this article would ever be appropriate, again I can't take that seriously either, but as said, I wasn't talking about that at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as no one has done so thus far, could I say thanks to Mjroots for his unbiased and reasonable assessment of the article - he has no axe to grind, and provided a welcome impartial view following my attempt to bring further neutral editors into the discussion via the talk page of Wikiproject UK Railways.

Next could I encourage MickMacNee, Tony May and Biscuittin to take a step back, perhaps for a day or two to consider their positions and reflect upon any areas on which they agree as per WP:Inertia. Its possible that in that time other editors may have a chance to consider the positions you have advocated above, and perhaps make some useful contributions that help us move forward here. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I do often thank others for provising outside opinions. In haste to address the points made, I didn't this time, but I will point out my first reply to Roots was perfectly reasonable, a factual reply to a factual assessment. But I did not threaten to disrupt to make a point, especially when the current argument is over Tony May edit warring to place a tag to highlight spelling errors. MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ColourSarge.

MickMacNee, if I make a suggestion, it doesn't mean it has to be implemented. That said, I find it offensive when a suggestion is dismissed out of hand with no real argument of why it is a bad suggestion (photos of each loco). I gave an example earlier of how the process I propose worked in a different dispute. I'm now going to show you what a list looks like when

every entry has a photograph

. As I said, I'm not going to edit this article. Not because I don't know enough about the subject; but because if I do, then at least one of the three of you is going to be arguing about what has been added/deleted or whatever.

It really is up to the three of you to work together on this article. I'm sure you all agree on the first five sections, so find those references and put them in. The sixth section? Well, I've suggested a way forward. It's up to you whether or not you follow that path or whether it goes to

WP:RFC against all three of you. Mjroots (talk

) 18:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the difference being, 49 of the 50 photos, unlike your windmills, would for all intents and purposes, be indistinguishable from each other (simple image pairs of course would suffice for detailed difference higlighting). I honestly could not see how anybody would agree to it on basic editorial principle, as pure image cruft, and precisely what COMMONS galleries are for. If that came across as an abrupt dismissal, I apologise, but I stand by it nonetheless, as being the longstanding approach to images on wikipedia. My other specific points are there to be replied to by anyone, including yourself. Tony May introduced the rest of the unsourced new content, so you will have to ask him where the refs for it are. MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this perfectly clear:- I'm not interested in who did what. I'm interested in the three of you working together on this article. MickMacNee, you are perfectly capable of googling and finding websites that will provide references for the article, as are Biscuittin and Tony May. So instead of arguing on here, why not work at improving the article, so that the {{

refimprove}} template can be removed? Mjroots (talk

) 19:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made minor corrections and added a ref for some of the dimensions. I don't know where the other dimensions came from because I did not write the original article. Biscuittin (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As further evidence for the historical approach I espouse, I have sought an external expert opinion from Dave Hunt. Unsurprisingly, Mr Hunt completely agrees with me, but don't take my word for it - the exchange may be found at User:Tony May/A1/BDH. Perhaps it is appropriate to discuss this at User talk:Tony May/A1/BDH? I await MacNee's attempt to discredit him. Tony May (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(going by version in case it changes). I don't need to discredit him. I merely need to point out what everybody else knows, on Wikipedia, 'qualifications' count for nothing. Please just learn some of the fundemental basics of Wikipedia like this. Or alternatively, you can become a contributor to

original research

.

But I will question its authenticity. First, for anybody to take this seriously, the only avenue open to you is to use the OTRS system to have this correspondance verified as released copyleft text, from a personal email address that can be linked to the LMS society. Second, he very conveniently mirrors every single point you make (the opinons you have made on the issue all over wikipedia generally, not just the actual email you sent him), down to the smallest issues and details. Coincidence? Made too good a job of it? He could be you in fact, so well do your opinions seem to match what you have said to date. The thing that immediately lept out at me, was the fact that his very first sentence said "I would regard Tornado as a full size replica of an A1", when you had not even asked him if he thought it was a replica, but merely if it should be considered alongside the originals. Coincidence? A telepathic meeting of minds? Or just plain old fashioned BS? Yet, I willingly stand to be corrected about its authenticity, just to see if you actaully have gone to this much length, accepting the above that ultimately, on wikipedia at least, it is no better or no worse than if he were just another user posting thoughts on a talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you are pushing your

WP:V

, the threshold is verifiablity over truth. The locomotive has been regularly described in reliable independant sources as "the 50th A1 Class locomotive". These reliable sources include the BBC, and such esteemed railway magazines at Heritage Railway, Steam Railway and Railway Magazine. Ergo, the locomotive is a Peppercorn A1 Class locomotive (albeit a modern version of the class). Remember, all articles are aimed at a lay reader, not an expert in the subject covered. It may be necessary to use technical terms and jargon in the article, but such terms should either be explained or wikilinked as appropriate so that someone who knows nothing about the subject of the article can check out something they do not understand fully. As I said to MickMacNee earlier, instead of arguing here, why not work at improving the article on the areas that you all agree on, and work towards achieving consensus on the one area you don't all agree on. I've suggested a way to do that, and show an example of how that suggested way worked elsewhere on Wikipedia - initially, on seeing that change I was really annoyed by it, but I appreciated that there were certain aspects of the original which could be seen as offensive by some people, given the area and ethnicity of the subject matter. That is why I engaged with the editor via the talk page of the article. The result was that differences were overcame, the main points in the paragraph I had written were kept in the article (which was important to me) and the paragraph was rewritten in a more neutral tone that was less biased against people from the Middle East, taking into account certain religious beliefs (important to Tiamut).

MickMacNee claims you have added the majority of the unsourced material to the article, so why not add the refs to show where you got it from? Biscuittin has started by adding a ref that he found. I urge all three of you to stop arguing over this article. Who did what/when they did it is not important. What is important is that the three of you work together to gain

WP:RFC against all three of you. Mjroots (talk

) 22:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mjroots, thanks for your help. I have covered what Tornado is at User:Tony May/A1#What is Tornado?. As you can appreciate, it is not straightforward. What, I am trying to show that my way of dealing with Tornado is the correct historical approach to take. It is not an opinion, it is an observation of appropriate academic standards. I believe I can show this by seeking external opinions. I humbly submit that Dave's point of view carries more weight than mine, MacNee's or anybody elses.

I do not know from where I added this uncited material. The only material which I have added is the build table and withdrawal table. I have not been allowed to edit anything else. These simply summarise the main stock list. My source for this is Hugh Longworth British Railway (sic) Steam Locomotives 1948-1968.

MacNee meanwhile has not found a reliable source which reproduces the stock list as shown (i.e. including Tornado) - not even the A1LST do this. It is not me who is adding uncited material - it is MacNee.

As for the other sources mentioned, I think you are probably misreading them. I can also show you press sources where Tornado is specifically called a replica. Tony May (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you can quote the book source with a {{

WP:NPOV is met. Mjroots (talk

) 22:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mjroots - I agree completely with what you are saying - the section #Tornado should explain why Tornado is a Peppercorn A1, and how it is different from the original engines. We need to get that wording perfect. My main point is not about that however, but how to deal with it in terms of the

article structure. In this case, listing Tornado with the original 49 engines is completely anachronistic and is done by nobody else. It is far better just to list the original 49 engines, with an appropriate qualification. I will not add citations to the table if the table does not reflect those citations (i.e. includes something that is not included in any of those sources). I hope you can understand what I mean. Tony May (talk

) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(last post tonight) Like I said earlier, the section on Tornado needs to be discussed on this talk page, and consensus gained on its wording as per example I gave above. You have references for the other 49 locos in the table, so add them to the table. One compromise is to have Tornado in a separate table of one locomotive underneath the table of the original 49 class members. Doing this would show that it is separate from the original locos, but closely related to them. I appreciate that all three of you have differing points of view, but you all need to try to see things from the other person's point instead of wearing the blinkers of your own POV. Mjroots (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Myroots, what you suggest is a slight improvement, but IMVHO there is very little point in a 1-line table. Tornado could, if deemed necessary, be mentioned in the text or the table caption. The caption itself can then be explicit that it is only discussing the original 49 engines. --Tony May (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have yet again reverted Tony May's personal style changes (and addition of in article commentary about sourceing). He has no consensus for these changes other than his own forthrightness, and I do not believe that this was your idea of the method of working out a solution Roots. You can file a user Rfc on me if you want Roots, but I am afraid I am well within my rights to do this. He has demonstrated through this entire saga an incurable case of

I am trying to identify the red-linked names in the A1 name list. Pommern might refer to Pommern (ship). Several of the A1 names are linked to Scotland and Pommern (ship) was built in Glasgow so it seems a likely candidate. Can anyone confirm this? Biscuittin (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

W.P.Allen was a former General Secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen [29] Biscuittin (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bois Roussel was apparently a racehorse, won Epsom Derby in 1938. Biscuittin (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bongrace, another racehorse, won Doncaster Cup in 1926. Biscuittin (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Aboyeur won the Epsom Derby in 1913. I invite suggestions on how best to link these racehorse names. Biscuittin (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I was wrong about Pommern. It was also a racehorse and won the

Willbrook won the Doncaster Cup in 1914. Biscuittin (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Borderer probably refers to people of the Scottish Borders or, perhaps, a military regiment. Can anyone confirm this? Biscuittin (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding a section to explain the names, listing "Characters in Sir Walter Scott's novels", "Racehorses", "Pre-grouping railway companies", etc. Biscuittin (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Scottish Union was a racehorse or not, but an insurance company of that name was absorbed into Norwich Union. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Database of racehorses - looks like Scottish Union was a racehorse! Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys not seen this page? MickMacNee (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Saint Mungo may have been named after a racehorse. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war has re-started - again. It isn't me. I am trying to improve the article by adding "notes on names" but I'm not doing any reverting. Biscuittin (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I intend to remove the red links and misleading links from the names list. See Wikipedia:Red link "Avoiding red links". Biscuittin (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Biscuittin (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any mediation taking place? The edit war between May and MacNee is continuing, and they will never agree, so somebody else will have to decide what should be in the article. It can't be me because I'm not a neutral observer. I agree with May on content but not on tactics. How much longer will this be allowed to go on? Biscuittin (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediators do not enforce content where no

consensus

for it exists. The way forward is very clear. For his edits to stand, Tony May needs to demonstrate he has consensus for them. Consensus is not an email from an 'expert'. Consensus is not repeating the same argument over and over. Consensus is not obvious and crude sock-puppetry. Consensus is not responding to every outside editor's opinion given by effectively saying, "yes, I appreciate what you are saying, but I'm still right". Consensus is not demanding Wikipedia follow the example of other works or face being dammed as having been created by idiots.

I freely ask you right here and now, to show everybody with exact diffs where Tony May has demonstrated he has consensus for:

• • • Removing mentions of Tornado being the 50th class member outside its section
    • Describing in that section that that view is only held by the A1 Trust
    • Renaming the List of Locomotives to a BR Stock List / List of BR Locomotives
    • Removing Tornado from said list on that basis
    • The view that this pages is for BR owned engines only
    • The view that this page states that Tornado was ever a BR owned engine
    • Removing comparative technical data for Tornado from the article infobox

If he has consensus for any of these beyond his own obstinant self belief, then it will be a very simple task for you to complete. If you can show that he has consensus right here and now, with third party editor opinions that do not violate basic policies such as NPOV/CRYSTAL/SYN/OR, then I could not possibly hope to refute it. This is not wikilawyering, this is not going against common sense. This is standard everyday stuff. My content position is ultimately defendable in every way until you do the above. Given the number of people who have commented now in various venues (we are surley up to 10 at least), his continued failure to get the point is not my fault in the least. MickMacNee (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have for the second time made an unfounded allegation of sock-puppetry. I am not Tony May, and I am tired of your insinuations against me. Either apologise as I have requested (see above) or else cease this tirade. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a notice on the talk page of Wikiproject Trains to notify interested editors there to come and comment on this issue here. This follows a similar note on the talk page of Wikiproject UK Railways a few days ago. I have checked the RFC and there seems to be little activity there are the moment.

Once again I would urge all editors involved in the current dispute to take a step back from editing the article and ensure that any comments made on this talk page are

Raised at WP:AN/I. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We can both mention the Tornado and make it clear that it's a modern-day recreation. Problem solved, get a good night's sleep. --NE2 08:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Suits me. Biscuittin (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article already does that. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Then what the hell are you arguing about? --NE2 12:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This revered edit [30] by MickMacNee is further evidence of this editors unreasonable behaviour. He knows that this is in dispute, and as such making this revert he must have known the effect that it would have. In the circumstances that currently prevail, he should show better judgement. Bhtpbank (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The only cause of "inflammation" will be single purpose accounts making reverts to game the dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone asks, Bhtpbank is not my sock puppet. I have every reason to suppose that he/she is a real person. Biscuittin (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume that this is an unprecedented situation because Wikipedia seems to have no means of dealing with it and I believe it is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. Does a new situation require a new mechanism to deal with it? Biscuittin (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Biscuittin, hopefully a compromise can be reached. However, the next stage of the dispute resolution is

request for comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk

) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does have a way of dealing with it. If MickMacNee keeps edit warring, he will be blocked. The onus is firmly on the person seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion, anything else is a POV-pusher's charter - [{WP:BRD] is the model, Mick boldly added it, it was reverted, and now he seems intent on insisting that he and only he has the
  Tiger Moth, but it is still a significant and wonderful thing. Bear in mind that I am not some ignoramus on this subject, my wife used to work for Tony Marchington who ruins Buxworth Steam Group and was once the owner of Flying Scotsman. But this is not about my opinion, it's about MickMacNee edit warring. Again. And if anyone wants to start and RfC then I will certainly certify it. Guy (Help!
  ) 22:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, per
  WP:ATT I have slightly reworded the disputed paragraph in a way which I think accurately reflects the source of the claim and I hope does not imply any judgment on whether it is fact or just opinion. I think we can leave that argument to external venues, we simply do not need to do anything other than say that it is intended as a 50th member of the class, and leave it at that. It's not for us to judge whether the "evolution" makes or breaks the claim. Guy (Help!
  ) 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• • If you had done any background research (i.e reading this and related talk pages that have surrounded this dispute) you will see that a head count of the people making the reverts is not an accurate count of the number of editors who agree/disagree it is the 50th A1. That majority, coupled with the absence of any source that disputes the fact, is what makes your action here a violation of the NPOV. You have overstepped your authority here with your threats, and have emboldened editors who have shown they have a poor grasp of several wiki policies and processes, and will now believe that if they argue long enough on an issue with total deafness to others, they can eventually have their personal veiw counted in an article over sources. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • The correct behavior, MicMacNee, is to attempt to find a solution that gains consensus rather than bull-headedly insisting that your preferred way of doing things is the only acceptable one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Do not accept JzG's assessment of who has been doing what as fact. He has not read any of the prior discussions surrounding the issue. It is not just me that has rejected Tony May's preferred style. The fact that none of these editors did it by reversion does not change that fact. If you want evidence of what JzG has now caused, look at this latest edit by Tony May at his 'case page' [31], where he variously lays out his personal objections to the sources in the article, and how we are all dumb shits for not wanting to turn wikipedia into a railway history book. Now compare that edit to the several opinions that were given in the railways project in the section here recently. By his action, JzG has just totally pissed all over the central process of consensus, by not even having the courtesy of reading the reveleant past discussions, and quoting an essay page and a rejected proposal as if they were policies. MickMacNee (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • It does not change the fact that only you, of anyone who disagrees with Tony May et al., are edit warring over it and reverting over it. Don't. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Mick, by making the comments you have above, you are rapidly destroying any credibility you have for a reasoned and mature consensus. I have tried on several occasions to encourage you and the other editors involved to take a step back and come back when you have calmed down. You have refused to do so and we see the results above. One last time I appeal to you (and to the other editors involved) to get a sense of perspective here, take a short break from editing the article and posting on this talk page, reflect on your positions and then come back and work on a consensus instead of seeing who can shout the loudest and longest. ColourSarge (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • (ec)Tony May edit warred, and deleted valid warnings. I took it to the 3RR board, it was dismissed out of hand (and Tony May was smart enough to know not too break 3RR, while ultimately he made no new talk page points). An EA thread was opened, this rejected Tony May's views. He continued obstinantly. An Rfc was opened, no comment was forthcoming. Tony May started to rafactor the talk page to deceive newcomers as to what had been said when. Then Biscuitin did not even wait the 30 days for an Rfc to finish, and after makig a hash of the whole process, a mediation cabal was finally opened, ultimately with no comments forthcoming. The issue was taken up by me at the rail project, nobody supported Tony May. Other people eventually came to this page, none of whom supported Tony May (and compromises were flat out rejected by Tony May). Through this entire episode I have been forced to repeat the same basic points again and again, with Tony May simply turning up and reverting, or claiming he was compromising when he was merely repeating the same edit from day one, or claiming he was copyediting the article while he still attempted to make the same disputed changes, all the while pretending as if nobody had ever objected to his opinion. He has basically said himself he doesn't care how long it takes, he is intending to swan throught he entire project and change articles as he sees fit, and does not realy care what other editors or the project members think (and then has the sheer bare faced lying cheek to use his own changes as examples of that he has consensus). And now after all this shit, I am being asked to prove that I have consensus, all because Jzg has steamed in without reading anything. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that I made a hash of applying for mediation. This was because I had never done it before. I also did not listen to MickMacNee's advice about applying for mediation. This was because I believed (wrongly) that he was trying to use procedural arguments to obstruct the process. For these errors I apologise. I am now satisfied that something useful is being done at LNER Peppercorn Class A1 and I intend to move on to other articles. Biscuittin (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And let's try and see what consensus we DO have here - both in terms of consensus among editors, and just as importantly (if not more so) among sources and acknowledged experts.

Tornado's creators state that they consider the locomotive the 50th Peppercorn A1, that they do NOT consider it a replica but a new construction, and that they felt free to update aspects of the design just as the original builders might have, with a 50+ year gap between production lots.

As an accurate statement of the opinions of the A1 Trust, does that sound about right?

However, Tony May has shown that reference works discussing the Peppercorn A1s generally do not treat Tornado together with the 1940s built locomotives. That's also accurate and not in dispute, right?

What else do we actually have consensus about? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• His reference works consist of:
  • Longworth - no idea what this is, no information provided
  • Ian Allen ABC, published 1961 - too early to be relevant
  • RCTS, published 1978 - too early to be relevant
  • Yeadon, published 1991 - too early to be relevant
  • The A1 Trust site. Why would they include Tornado in the list which they identify as being about the original 49, and the rest of their site is about Tornado?
  • Some site called UK Rail. I very much doubt this meets RS, I can find no info about its authors or standing.
  • The LNER encyclopoedia site. This ultimately looks like a personal work, and again likely fails RS. (And it actually also repeats the 50th A1 claim, if we are going to include it as an RS)
  • An email from an expert outlining what
    he would do
    if publishing a book about the A1s. (No confirmation via OTRS)

As well as the sources in the article already (the Trust itslf, the IMECHE (a professional engineering institute), and the Railway Magazine (one of the big three UK rail magazines), the following sources also describe Tornado as the 50th A1:

news sources

• Yorkshire Post (and partner papers): The Tornado is the 50th class A1
• BBC: Tornado, the 50th A1 locomotive ever to be built

The IET (another professional institute of engineers)

• www.theiet.org: The locomotive is being built in Darlington as the 50th in the class

commercial sites

• visitnortheastengland.com: see the 50th A1 Class Peppercorn Pacific Locomotive
• www.warners-exhibitions.co.uk: the 50th member of this wonderfully reliable and economical class

railway type sites

• www.burtonrailwaysociety.co.uk: eventual steaming of the 50th A1 Pacific
• www.railnews.co.uk: a completely new main line steam locomotive. Built at Darlington over the last 14 years, Tornado is billed as the 163rd member of the London and North Eastern Railway's A1 class

Now, if we are going to label all of these as biased as JzG has done with this edit, as mere mouthpieces of the Trust, you are basically stating that:

• a) None of these sources have the integrity to refute a claim they are reporting but believe to be false
• b) The absence of any source that actually disputes it is the 50th A1 is not relevant (i.e. Tony May and Biscuittin represent the required contrary sources per NPOV needed to discredit the reporting of the content of such sources)

I suspect the vast majority of these are simply taking their information from the Trust's publicity materials, as non-specialist publications.

That said, I'm not sure it's actually the bare statement that Tornado is, or is considered to be by (whoever), the 50th Peppercorn A1 that's the true bone of contention here.

What seems to me to be the true contention is whether this article should be primarily about the 49 locomotives produced in the 1940s by LNER/BR and mention Tornado to only a limited degree, pointing the reader to our separate article on it for more information, or whether it should give more weight to Tornado on the grounds of being a piece of current rather than historical interest.

Does that seem to characterize the dispute? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the claim that this is the 50th in class is of itself contentious at two levels: first, the infobox with it's manufacture dates of 1948-1949 and 2008 (implying a production run of 1 after 50 years dormant; a production run is different form a project largely manned by volunteers); and the bare claim of 50th in class rather than attributing it as an aspiration. The trust say that they conceived it as an evolution, fixing numerous issues and also complying with modern safety regulations. That is not justly the same thing as, for example, dusting off a mothballed plant and cranking out one last example. But of course steam engines were largely handbuilt anyway, often with significant variation in class over the production run, sometimes with the earlier examples reworked at a later date. I would sya that the fountain source of the 50th in class claim is the trust, and that it is repeated uncritically by many sources not because it is true but because nobody cares that much. The difference is there, though: steam engines are not a part of daily railway running in the UK any more, and this is a special locomotive more akin to preserved engines than to the original intent of scheduled main line operation. In 1949 this was a production locomotive used in standard passenger express service. In 2008 it is effectively a preserved locomotive, run as other preserved locomotives are run, albeit hopefully destined to be more useful and more reliable than some of the older and more asthmatic examples (the Bulleid spamcan seen being shoved along by a Class 47 outside Reading springs to mind).

Overall, though, I think you are right: the Peppercorn A1 is, for the purposes of understanding the class and the development of rail traction in the UK, a historical class of locomotive. To cast it as a locomotive with a production run which includes one in the 21st Century is distracting. Historically, it fits in the development of the Eastern including the Thompson and Gresley A1s and of course the iconic Gresley A3s and A4s. The period of production of this class is of historical importance, being the period of nationalisation, and for proper understanding the class does need to be viewed in that context. In fact, the less we say about Tornado in this article, the better - it's a great case for {{main}} because the extensive coverage of one atypical engine in this article is overbalancing the proper historical perspective. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue we've seen before in many places: a source makes a claim that is not explicitly argued against anywhere; perhaps the claim is even picked up by other sources. The lack of published dissent then leads someone to claim on Wikipedia that "the sources are unanimous" or that there is a clear consensus in them - and that that the claim must therefore be treated as unambiguously true and obvious, to the degree that it should not require attribution to a specific source but rather should be stated as fact.

This issue comes up often with e.g. fringe or new scientific theories; in rumors and tabloid journalism; in anything recently in the news. In this specific case, there is simply not the historical distance required to be able to assess such a thing and provide a true, learned consensus. This, to me, says that we should be cautious in how we treat newer material, and be careful about anything that is in fact a matter of opinion and judgment. It also argues for some separation between our treatment of the 1940s built locomotives and Tornado - since how they relate to one another and how they should be seen relative to each other doesn't have much in the way of considered writings to draw upon, not much historian's consensus to find yet.

And of course nobody's really quibbled much in print with the A1 Trust's claim that Tornado is the 50th Peppercorn A1; the Trust is the one with the need to influence current opinion, since they need funding and volunteers, while most opposition to it would be more academic, the kind of matter that gets written in books ten years from now when a proper assessment has a hope of being written. There is, I feel, a desire as well not to rain on the Trust's parade; "50th A1" is a snappy soundbite, works well as part of their publicity, and most rail enthusiasts wish the Trust success both for its own sake and so that it might encourage future projects to construct strong, new-build steam locomotives for main line running rather than keeping historic and increasingly fragile equipment in such service. Of course, this is my supposition only - but it illustrates the problem with being too uncritical about sources and current events. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with every word, especially not wanting to rain on the Trust's parade. You are spot on: the two need to be treated with a degree of separation appropriate to the fact that one was a mainstream locomotive class built as a series as a commercial proposition in the 1940s and the other is a tribute built by enthusiasts as part of what one might justly term the preservation movement. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt/Morven, thank you for your help but I think you are missing the important point which is largely about article structure. We can report the Trust's opinion as opinion, but it must be dealt with chronologically and hence separately. I also strongly suggest my sources are much more clearer than a misinterpretation of a quote, which is all MacNee has. Also, it is extremely unlikely that they considered the history or the structure of a Wikipedia article when writing this. This is a particular, unusual problem. Tony May (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

{{

In his recent change, JzG failed to appreciate (or just ignored the edit summary here) that he was breaking several internal links. For now, so that it makes any sense, the article needs to be changed, such that all links of the form #Tornado - 50th A1 are changed to #Tornado. There are four, one in the lead, 3 in the infobox. MickMacNee (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to create this section. I know it's a bit pointy, but I have tried everything else to get the message across, and looking at the latest action by JzG, nothing but brute force in your face black and white fact is going to cut it it seems, to show others that with regard to the NPOV, personal opinions on what Tornado is don't matter if you cannot source that position. So, if anybody has a

I don't know of any sources that explicitly state that the William Crooks is not the 50th Peppercorn A1 class locomotive, either. For that matter, there may not be any sources that explicitly state that Union Pacific 3985, Milwaukee Road 261, and Thomas the Tank Engine are not the 50th Peppercorn A1 class locomotive. I suppose not all of those could be the 50th Peppercorn A1 class locomotive; the William Crooks could be the 51st, Thomas might be the 52nd, and UP 3985 and MILW 261 would probably be tied for 53rd. Read up on negative proof for some more ideas. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

MicMacNee does have a good point, however, that no explicit, Wikipedia-quality sources have been laid out here that say bluntly that they do NOT consider Tornado to be the 50th Peppercorn A1.

Rather, the argument against it is that:

• When given the opportunity to do so, specialist publications do frequently separate them rather than consider them together
• Other new-build locomotives built to old plans in recent years have been considered replicas, re-creations, or otherwise not a continuation of the original type
• What separates Tornado from those locomotives is simply the decision of the A1 Locomotive Trust that it is different, that it is part of the original class
• Parallels with other historical artifacts that have been produced again later (such as e.g. classic cars, etc) show a precedent that later re-creations are frequently not considered the same thing as the original, even if the later re-creators claim that they should be.

(and possibly others)

To me, this says that it's quite justifiable to include the A1 Trust's statement that it is the 50th A1, but it would be better if it were attributed than left bare. Tornado is without a doubt quite different from the 49 locomotives produced in the 1940s and it would be quite wrong, I feel, to blur that distinction. Furthermore, since Tornado has its own article, I think it would be unhelpful to our readers to make this article consider Tornado at length. It should not be pushed out, but neither should it have great prominence here, I feel. The stories of the original 49 and Tornado are quite different and quite separate, and there is a similar divide in technical specifications.

Would this prove a reasonable compromise, or would you consider this unacceptable? If so, why? (The same would be appreciated from the others edit warring over this as well). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It suits me. I have never tried to "prove" that Tornado is not the 50th A1. All I have said is that the statement is an opinion (of the A1 Trust) so, in the interests of NPOV, it should not be presented as a fact. Biscuittin (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My view is that all of the references that state that this engine is the "50th" derive from the A1 Trust. You hasve to remember that magazines and newspapers relay heavily on what is provided to them by the press officers of an organisation. And lets be honest, it is is the clear (business motivated) interests of the A1 Trust to state that this is the 50th. If it were not, then it would surely attract far less interest to the public than it now does. And once things get labelled, in this case "50th", it sticks. But that DOES NOT mean that from an historical or encylopedic viewpoint, that it is correct. Historians and compilers of authoritative books and other publications need to take a wider, more informed view, and see past the "sales and marketting" hype that might be associated with a particular subject. And fankly, in the case of "Tornado", I think things are still clouded by hype, rather than a true assessment. Wikipedia must not be swayed by the public perception of what the A1 Trust want us to believe, and sift the evidence for and against much more carefully. On balance, I see a lot of references for "tornado" being the 50th coming from press articles, probably because few books have yet been written on it. I would bet that in 10 or 20 years time that authors would be better able to place "tornado" in this context, and my gut feeling tells me that they will view "Tornado" as what it is, a replica. We will find find references that "revoke" the "50th" claim, because nobody wants to kill a baby at birth. Give it time, and reasoned argument will reach a different conclusion. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A further note on references. Ian Allan ABC includes the original A1/1 "Great Northern" in its list, making a total of 50 British Railways A1s. This would make "Tornado" the 51st. This point was made by me at [32] but it was removed by MacNee. Biscuittin (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. It wasn't removed, it was transferred to the references section where it is less obvious. Biscuittin (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I expect the response will be that "Great Northern" was not a Peppercorn A1. True, but neither is Tornado because it was built long after Arthur Peppercorn died. Biscuittin (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is not even in the same category as the Duke of Gloucester, which might then add weight to the "50th" argument (putting aside the fact that the Duke of Gloucester was a unique loco!!). I think you know what I mean in terms of the similiarity (or not) with "Tornado". Bhtpbank (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've read through things again and
  WP:BOLDly made a minor change to say that the trust and other enthusiasts (italics not in original) consider it the 50th of the class, which seems to accurately reflect the sources. To address Matthew's point, yes, attribution is the way to deal with it, and that's what I did earlier. More detail probably belongs on the article on the engine itself, no? The inclusion of 2008 in the infobox is anomalous, though. Youo can't say it's still in production, this was very much a one-off, and it's misleading to imply that this is a class still in production. Guy (Help!
  ) 13:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone is expressing what is clearly an opinion, and yet we cannot source contrary opinions does not make that opinion fact. I have also provided press sources specifically calling Tornado a replica. You also need to include why the trust hold that opinion, which so far has been completely ignored. Tony May (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tornado being the 50th A1 is widely reported in various reliable sources. By all means state that others consider it is a replica, and provide the reliable sources to show that. That way, a NPOV is maintained. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But the trust regard Tornado as the fiftieth A1, for engineering reasons. That the trust themselves state this as opinion not fact is significant. Tony May (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but other

reliable sources such as the BBC, national newspapers, etc do state this as fact. That gives some weight to the arguement that Tornado is the 50th A1. As I said above, there is nothing wrong in neutrally presenting both sides of the arguement and letting the reader decide for themselves. Mjroots (talk

) 06:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is sloppy journalism (they ignore the word regard, probably not fully appreciating (1) why the trust regard and (2) how this could possibly affect the structure of an encyclopedic article). I think it is better to use the

60163 Tornado article. Tony May (talk

) 11:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That the Trust subsequently found that '50th A1' played well in press releases doesn't change what the statement was originally about, and not about. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. And the obsessive focus on this one tiny facet has led to a reversal of exactly the intent you describe; where the trust were aiming for a new build, a working locomotive perhaps as Peppercorn would have designed it today, the "5oth" claim is being used to assert almost the exact opposite, that it is part of the series. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is instructive to look at how old technology items were considered at the time. ^[1] This story about the Bentley "Old Number One" shows that such devices were not static and were not expected to be static. In the case of the Bentley, although the final version of "old Number One" contained few parts in common with the car when it was first built, it was still considered the same car. Changes during production and operation of all kinds of devices at that time were the norm. Probably no two A1's were actually the same (because of minor changes, upgrades, some of which were probably not documented) after they had been used for some time and expecting them to be was unrealistic. Your suggestion that Tornado is "what Peppercorn would have designed today" is frankly, ridiculous, because, what get designed today are electric and diesel trains. A more rational statement would be to describe it as: an A1 with natural progression in design.Captain Nemo III (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to the idea that contradictory sources are not required

I am disappointed by some of the replies in this section. To refresh people's memory, the supposedly contentious claims that this article makes are as follows:

• That Tornado is the 50th A1

(and/or by extension) :

• That Tornado is new build Class A1 and not a replica of an existing one

(and with respect to this page) :

• That Tornado should be described as a new build in the same way as the original class (i.e. in a list of A1s, in the infobox, etc)

The developments that are required to properly judge these issues from a historical/technical point of view, have already happened, namely:

• Tornado is built
• Tornado is named and numbered
• The differences between Tornado and the original A1s are known
• The stated position of the builders of Tornado is known

Therefore, it is quite ridiculous to claim that in this internet age, that sources from reputable sources of railway historiana (i.e. not just random wikipedia editors) cannot be found if they truly disagree with the claims. The suggestion we must wait for 'history to judge' is nonsense.

Given the buzz surrounding Tornado, rather than as some people have claimed, that sources don't exist because they would not want to rain on the Trust's parade, I submit that anyone who actualy disagreed would get good publicity from stating their contrary positions. An alternative view as to why they hold back (if indeed they have), is that they don't want their views to be roundly rejected by their peers.

Replies of the form "but I also cannot cite a source that claims Elvis Presley is not the 50th A1" are complete and utter nonsense, and frankly an insult to people's intelligence. There is absolutely no claim being made that the idea that Elvis Presley is the 50th A1, therefore it would be stupid beyond belief to expect the existence of sources to the contrary would exist. That is a made up example of a controversy, this is supposedly real.

Tony May has two news sources that describe Tornado as a replica, which I have never objected to having included, because per NPOV this basic fact can be included in the article (I have absoulutely no problem following standard policies). What cannot be then done is the deduction that they specifically refute any of the claims made above, or that these sources had any particular definition of the word replica in mind (because, as none of this is stated in these sources, any conclusions drawn like this would be

The fact is, the claims above have been made, and the claim that they are disputed has been made. Therefore, if people don't want to appear to be giving the impression there is a controversy based purely on their personal opinion (and thus elevate the use of sock farms as being more influential over content on the pedia than actual verifiable information), then the expectation of the existence of direct contradictory sources is absolutely a reasonable expectation. Now, if we are allowing opinion to count, then I am including mine in a separate section.

IMO the infobox should only carry details of the original 49 class members, and mention Tornado in the build date, number in class and number sections of the infobox. Any differences between the original class members and Tornado should be mentioned in the article on Tornado and in the Tornado section of the article. The number of cylinders should be on a separate line in the infobox as per{{

I agree with this. Tornado has its own article where its differences can be discussed in more detail. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

{{

Could somebody please add "cylindercount = 3" to the infobox. I can't because the article is locked. Biscuittin (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Happy to, where should it go? Guy (Help!) 13:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Before "Cylinder size", see LNER Class A4 for example. Biscuittin (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Done. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be picky, but could you please remove the (3) from "Cylinder size" as well? Biscuittin (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is an improvement, as it reduced unnecessary clutter, though I would still consider maybe introducing a separate field in the infobox. Perhaps a generic "Preservation" section could be used (I know it's not a "preserved locomotive" but they are part of the

• I agree that specific measurement and other details which apply only to Tornado should not go in the infobox. The infobox should describe the Peppercorn A1, not the compromises and refinements made by enthusiasts with the benefit of 50 years of hindsight and a change in the overall height requirement for 21st century running; those things are absolutely appropriate for the Tornado's infobox, but not the class. If one is talking about a very small class with significant intra-class variation, as is common with warships, for example, then it would be appropriate (I think A class destroyer might do as an example) but here we are talking about 49 built over two years a sa series and one built fifty years later by enthusiasts to an entirely different requirement albeit from a modified set of the original drawings. And the requirement is fundamentally different, Tornado was not built for regular scheduled main-line service. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony May has continued to insist that he has presented reliable secondary sources that show that Tornado is considered differently to the original engines [33]. Even more disappointing is that people still take this claim as fact in the later discussions. (Morven's point 1: "When given the opportunity to do so, specialist publications do frequently separate them rather than consider them together") Well, he simply has not shown this.

The supposed printed historical sources

• Ian Allen ABC, published 1961
• RCTS, published 1978
• Yeadon, published 1991

Each of these sources were published before construction of Tornado was even started. They are simply not relevant. They exist in the article as sources for the details of the original 49. They support no other conclusion at all.

"Longworth"

Although he declined to help either the reader or this discussion page by elaborating with any form of

• The A1 Trust site's List of original A1s and Original A1s technical specs table

Aside from the fact that it is a primary source, and as such has no basis in a discussion about how claims are perceived, it beggars belief that Tony May thinks he can use the A1 Trust's own site to claim that Tornado is not ordinarily considered alongside the original A1s. No webmaster in their right mind would be stupid enough to tack Tornado onto the end of their historical list, because that page is specifically described in the opening paragraph as a list of the original 49. Neither would he add the technical information to the table in the history section of the site when the point is clearly to describe the specifications of the originals (and for comparison the differences with Tornado are listed directly below the table on that page). Given the fact the rest of their website is all about Tornado, what possible reason would they have to add information about Tornado to pages about the historical A1s? Seriously - I want to know this, if it is going to be held by Tony as somehow significant, and not as it appears to me, a total irrelevance.

Other internet sites

• The LNER Encyclopoedia's A1 page
• The railuk.info database A1 page

First, are these

I have no idea, because requests for clarification from Tony have gone unanswered. (Tony makes replies he wants to make at his 'case page' where they cannot be refuted or even responded to easily, and the content is changed from one day to the next without identification).

Railuk have apparently not yet got around to telling anyone what their status is or who even creates their content: "About us". It also appears not to even mention Tornado in its database at all? This fact means this site supports no conclusion for anything, let alone considering how Tornado is treated with respect to the originals. Tony May and the new user who repeats his points parrot fashion, want to assert that all sources that claim Tornado is an A1 are biased. Well, judging by the ads, this website seems to be a clear commercial outlet for the very books he likes to claim are the true independant sources. Would it be unsurprising if the historical books named above pop up on the ad pages of this site?

The LNER encyclopoedia A1 page lists no references bar acknolodgements for photos. The information on the page is severely out of date (17 months to be precise). It looks like a nice site, it realy does. It almost looks professional, although with a wiki like feel. The site is "Copyright 2001-2008, Richard Marsden". There is no other information as to who this is, although the home page states he also has an interest in Texan railroads. The presence of a bibliography page for the site merely reinforces the idea that this is a personal version of wikipedia, where information is aggregated from primary and secondary sources. I don't believe this ranks this site as any more relevant to this issue than Wikipedia itself.

At best as far as I can make out, citing both of these sites as credible references would be akin to using a possibly self published, unreliable, tertiary sources. What Tony is asserting is that these two sites are primary respected historical works supporting a particular approach as to how wikipedia should present information. This would be akin to citing Wikinews as a source, or even a style example, for Wikipedia.

Regarding all of these sources, Tony May has not even sought the confidence of the RS noticeboard for his assertions (another standard Wikipedia process everyone has to go through, but which seem to be mere inconveniences to Tony as he single handedly rewrites all historical UK locomotive articles to his preferred style)

I am however prepared to have the LNER encyclopoedia included as a reliable source, because it makes it clear (in a view attributed to that site and not a 'biased reproduction' of A1 Trust information), that Tornado is the 50th Peppercorn A1.

If we are abandoning all pretences that we require any backing from sources or policy to edit, and that all we need is the conviction of personal self belief, I hereby present my own

Readers are not retarded.

They may not have an understanding of railway jargon, but they are simply not stupid. Any right minded person who reads the article in the usual way, i.e. the lead, then each section down, would not be overly confused by my preferred version. Specifically, that version:

• does not state or even reasonably imply Tornado was a British Railways locomotive
• does not state or even reasonably imply Tornado was taken into British Railways stock
• does not state or even reasonably imply Tornado was built in a British Railways workshop
• does not state or even reasonably imply Tornado is a current financial asset of British Railways
• does not state or even reasonably imply that Tornado was built at the same time as the British Railways locomotives
• does not state without correct attribution which primary and secondary sources consider Tornado as the 50th Peppercorn A1
• does not state without correct attribution which primary and secondary sources consider Tornado is a Peppercorn A1 class locomotive
• cannot, by simple logic, be seen as stating that the LNER actively classified Tornado

Anybody suggesting that the content of the article is represented by the infobox, or the list, or the headers/title, on their own, are clearly trying to advance an unreasonable view of how normal people read normal, referenced and verifiable, articles. This would appear a classic case of writing by editors and not for readers. Artificially segregating Tornado from relevant comparative portions of the article does not make the above bulleted issues any more clear for the reader. Including Tornado in the article in these comparative parts using appropriate links and caveats, is helpful to the reader.

Implying that the article states certain things, when such implications are not supported by the actual content of the article, is simply dishonest, and an example of agenda based reasoning.

Tornado is not a replica or reproduction of the class, but the next in class

• It would have been possible for the Trust to create an actual replica of the original A1 Class. With original materials, an old boiler and tender, correct capacities for coal and water, all parts to the original drawings, no changes such as roller bearings etc. This would not have prevented the creation of a working locomotive. Plenty of current new build projects are actually doing this, because they in part want to remain faithfull to their goal of making a true replica and not the next class member, and in part that they cannot actually afford to make the necessary updates to designs to truly claim to have created the 'next in class'. But their new builds will be able to operate on preserved lines all the same. For all intents and purposes for the actual defining aspects of the Peppercorn A1 class, such as the valve gear, divided drive etc etc, Tornado is a faithfull member of the class. This is what defines a true next in class new build, rather than a replica/reproduction project.

• New build locomotives are specifically identified by their frames. New numbers meant a new frame, a new build locomotive. This was standard railway practice in the heydey of steam. Tornado was built with brand new everything, least of all frames. Tornado wears the next number in the class. So the new number is not actually the PR gimmic people would have you believe - this is what happened everytime the next locomotive in a class was manufactured. It is the case that other current new build projects have chosen to re-use numbers: it is those projects that will have to justify their reasons for going against past railway practice, it is not for the A1 Trust to justify carrying on a standard railway practice.

• Past replica projects that have created completely new locomotives, frames and all, have numbered and named their locomotives after specific members of the class they are replicating. This is because replication is their aim. This again shows that replication is not the A1 Trusts primary aim.

On PR spin and other ulterior motives for terminology

• Some people have suggested that "50th A1" and "next in class" are pure PR gimmics and have no other justification from a historical perspective. These people are obviously not aware that in several historical and preservation circles, the creation of the next in class rather than the reprodcution of an evocotive member of the old class, such as the first, for example, actually can have a detrimental effect on potential support. Many have said that it is actually a negative for the project that Tornado has no specific self identifying history that other true replicas have, even though they too are brand new, and only have their historical connections through being facsimilies. So it is rather daft to suggest that the Trust, if their true goal was to replicate an A1 rather than a completely new entity, would not attempt to cash in that aspect of heritage/preservationism. Finally, if it is a PR gimmic, then it has gained some acceptance outside of the Trust, because the term "next in class" is being applied to a number of less well advanced new build projects. So either now, or in the future, by simple weight of sources, these supposed impartial historical observers will have to eventually acknowledge the terms, or come up with alternatives that fit.

• Another spin on idea that aiming to faithfully produce the next in class was not just a PR stunt, early in the project the trust also lost potential support for not advancing the design enough, by making design changes that would have been significant enough to truly cross the boundary into the territory of what at the time would have been considered either a new sub-class or a whole new class. The Trust were definitely not creating a "21st Century Locomotive". If anybody has the wrong idea that Tornado from a design point of view is a 21st Century steam locomotive, and not just an the next A1 with up to date electronics/materials, they need to do some research, starting with this article.

• Some people may be unaware that the A1 Trust suffered considerable hostility and negative spin from some members of the traditional preservation movement. Motives for this can include the perception that the 'non-canonical' Tornado project was diverting funds that could otherwise go to more deserving projects preserving original locomotives. Other people are arguably jealous that this project has succeeded where other less professional projects fell by the wayside or are interminably stalled. Some actively said the project could not be done, and are arguably now trying to deal with having to be proved wrong. As such, any attempts to denigrate the Trust as mere PR spinners by mere reference to what it is not, or how it will be judged by 'proper preservationists', must be taken with as much a pinch of salt as any claims that are made by the Trust without the backing of secondary views or the backing of simple common sense knowledge of history and engineering.

• The idea that the only people supporting the notion that Tornado is the 50th A1 are 'other enthusiasts' is quite bizarre. I was not aware that institutions such as The BBC, the Daily Mail, the IET or the IMechE were all inherently classed as railway enthusiasts. The IET and the IMechE are professional engineering bodies. They know exactly what constitues an original member of a class, and they have no vested interest in repeating Trust propoganda if they think it is nonsense.

The difference between production runs and classes

• The definition of "inexact replica" does not actually support the idea that Tornado is a replica at all when compared to the original 49. The definition of replica as used by Tony being "any close or exact copy or reproduction" does not appreciate a basic fact of the reality of production: Every class member is a close copy of the last. It is impossible to create exact replicas in the manner that locomotives were built in the day, so any reference to the term exact replica in trying to differentiate Tornado from the original 49 is utter nonsense. And to underline the lack of knowledge of production practices this demonstrates, the most closely replicated class members were produced in batches or lots. Nobody who knows the difference is suggesting Tornado is the same batch/lot as the 49th A1. This is not the same as saying they are the same class

• Locomotives made in different batches or lots would often have significant design differences between them, much like Tornado has compared to the originals. These do not invalidate their status as common class members. A difference such as in Tornado, such as design changes to correct the ride, would not have meant a new class or sub-class was created. This is no more the case than the Audi A4 ceased to be an A4 when they switched from steel to aluminium chassis, or in the case of electronics when it started to be sold with a GPS. None of these changes represent class changes, but evolution of a class, which is what Tornado is. Moving from divided drive to synchronous drive is an example of a design change that would create a new class. The evolution of the design without breaking core design features is ultimately what shows that Tornado is the next in class rather than a replica or (re)production of the class, not the other way round. It also cannot be stressed enough that even the idea that the original class adhered to their own recorded designs is totally wrong, the fact that the Trust could not even make some parts of Tornado fit by using the original drawings because of in production changes illustrates this quite clearly.

• The original 49 members of the class were actually produced on two different production lines. The notion that a production line defines a class it totally false. In modern times, manufacturing companies have moved lines lock stock to different countries. Nobody would ever suggest that the class designation is then different for products made in these new countries. The notion that the original A1 production lines even created the same physical locomotive design is false. The differences between a Doncaster and a Darlington A1 were visible to the naked eye, and do not even require being an expert to recognise. Doncaster and Darlington A1s are still A1 class locomotives. The visual differences between Tornado and an original Doncaster/Darlington A1 are just as minor as between the Doncaster or Darlington ones themselves. Any notion that the location/nature of production separates/delineates a class is totally wrong.

A production batch of one does not invalidate the project

• Small contemporary car manufacturers such as Morgan or Caterham can produce limited production runs. If a car is ultimately bad, or superceded quickly, they might even only create single production examples. Nobody could ever suggest that these cars are not original production runs. Nobody will ever suggest that these manufacturing companies are preservationists. Nobody would daft enough to separate their cars in Wikipedia automotive ariticles when compared with more numerous models produced by other manufacturers.

• The A1 Trust have in the past said that it is perfectly possible that once Tornado had cleared the shop, that it was perfectly feasible for them to manufacture another locomotive. There is nothing to stop them creating the 51st Peppercorn A1, although it is probably unlikely. The arguments against doing so do not stem from any idea that the A1 Trust were somehow not proper locomotive manufacturers, and only create replicas.

Having different manufacturers does not mean they are differenct classes

• Many locomotive classes at the time of grouping/nationalisation passed from one manufacturer to another. They are not considered different in terms of class. Note that the LNER design was manufactured by BR, they did not abandon the class designation decided by another now non-existent company. That they are considered successor companies is neither here nor there. The A1 Trust can be considered to have produced Tornado on licence from the successor company of British Railways, the National Railway Museum. Any arguments that Tornado is not the next in class based on either who manufactured it, or how long has passed between the two, are thus ultimately weak. When the time difference is readily explained in the article, the arguments become worthless.

Tornado is not a throwback or an artifact

• The building of Tornado can be described as an act of preservation, but this does not support the levels of pure synthesis that others are then attaching to it to support other conclusions. Tornado can still be considered as preserving the A1 Class for future generations, without denying the fact that it is the 50th, new build, A1 class member.

• Tornado was built for the primary role of doing what its other class mates did, be an operational steam locomotive. In fact, people might not be aware that the primary goal of the Trust was simply to build a new locomotive, they did not even choose the Peppercorn A1 until later. This is not what preservationist/heritage groups do, they concentrate on stopping their specifically chosen class member of locomotives breaking or rusting away, or in the case of some of the other emerging new builders, are creating new builds as a way of creating more reliable true historic replicas, indisinguishable from the examples they seek to copy. I cannot see the owners of truly historic artifacts or even of faithful new build reproductions agreeing to have the National Express logo painted on a tender in order to pay for main line testing, or to have parts of their loco modified for better running if it takes their locomotive away from its status as a trurly preserved machine. Tornado has not been built as a moving museum, neither was it built to be run on authentic heritage lines as a throwback. It preserves history up to the point where doing so is compatible with the main aim, building and running a new class member. Keeping Tornado operational on the main line is treated as the primary goal of its owners, just like the original class owner, BR. You will not find many other groups owning 'artefacts' going to such lengths if it compromises their machines. Even if it were not legally barred, you will not find any other group very willing to take their locos above 75mph today. Tornado was designed to do 100mph straight out of the box, just like the original class members. This illustrates quite clearly the difference in nature of Tornado and other preserved locomotives.

• Just because Tornado will be primarily hauling express charters and not main line passenger trains does not mean it is not a new build class member. It might have escaped some people's attention that several preserved locomotives have latterly been given permission to run scheduled network rail services on the main line. These locomotives did not cease to be considered members of their class when they were preserved, and similarly they do not become any more a class member by virtue of regaining 'working duties' on the main line. Similarly, the primary purpose of use of Tornado does not define its status as either being a preserved locomotive or an original class member of a defined class.

The A1 Trust is a locomotive manufacturer and not just another preservation group

• All of the key members of the Trust were professionally qualified people. Arguably given the knowledge of modern legislation and computer design, the engineering and manufacturing staff can actually be considered as being more professional than many workers in the original works.

• The relevant parts of the project were all constituted in proper companies, no differently than the afformentioned small batch companies like Morgan. Everything was financed, ordered and manufactured as would occur in any proper manufacturing enterprise.

• Tornado from the outset was a project that was planned, and looks very likely, to pay for itself without requiring true giving away of money (all gifts are actually bonds), with even the possibility of a profit for supporters on top. BR by contrast was notorious as being a financial bottomless pit. You need more than two hands to count the number of preservation groups that have folded.

• All parts of Tornado were built from original drawings where possible. Nothing was bodged or banged or assumed/changed in any way that would not have also been done in the original works.

• The manufacture and testing of Tornado has been done from the outset under a recognised Quality Management System. All parts have been properly certified to modern day regulations. All activity has been undertaken under a recognised certification body.

• Had British Railways continued into the present day, and had still been making A1s in Darlington Works, apart from quantities and certain batch production method efficiencies, everything done by the Trust in building Tornado would have been required to have been done in the BR works, or featured on the modern locomotives that would emerge out of those hypothetical works.

As above, any argument that the skills or qualifications of the A1 Trust members, or the set up of the operation, marks the difference between Tornado and original class members, cannot be sustained.

Tony May's main arguments made for content changes to this page (his lumper splitter/professional approach/IMVHO... etc style comments) seem to stem from a wider belief that Wikipedia articles should be slavishly reproducing the style of historical railway books. His contributions to other articles are already reflecting this. There are various reasons why his approach is totally wrong:

• Wikipedia is
  first and foremost
  intended to be an accessible general encyclopoedia which also combines specialist information; it is not a specialist railway historian wiki first and foremost
• wikilink
  in the event that confusion may arise about why particular pieces of information appear in particular places.
• Wikipedia should avoid/explain
  jargon. To illustrate the technical level of the sources Tony is attempting to turn wikipedia articles into, this is a review of one of them: Don't expect coffee-table casual here: extensive technical data includes charts with names, date of construction modifications, and more, juxtaposing tables and statistics with vintage illustrations of many of the classic trains. A recommended pick for the avid enthusiast
  . Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia can and should include this information, but Tony is doing so at the total exclusion of any other level of readability/relevance, and in total disregard for the advantages of a wiki.
• Wikipedia cannot reference itself Sometimes Tony uses sources (he never uses inline citations, and often cannot even give enough information in a general reference to even be verifiable). But more worryingly, sometimes he makes totally unsourced additions to other articles, which he later cites as the approach of Wikipedia, to give the impression that these changes represent consensus, and are not the result of a one man mission. See this series of unsourced changes to the the class (locomotive) page, a rather crucial article whose contents are central to this dispute. Articles that were sensibly self contained are now being split all over the place to satisfy his personal idea that class=stock is the only acceptable method of presentation of lists of locomotives. The resulting articles are pretty much meaningless to anyone but the railway historian (this is fine according to him, anyone who doesn't agree with this approach is an "ignorant" moron). It also produces anomolies such as the rebuilt locomotive Great Eastern related to this page, whose service history is now described across tables in three class pages, none of which sensibly link to each other or give any indication that this was the same machine. Specifically for this page, his mission would seem to suggest that the content all satifactorally covered in two pages must be split into no less than four different pages, the Peppercorn A1 Type, the Peppercorn A1 (British Railways) Class, the Peppercorn A1 (A1 Steam) Class, and 60163 Tornado. (Or you have accept his unsourced POV that Tornado is a preservation replica and not a new build class).
• Wikipedia decides its own style. Wikipedia has a general
  Manual of style. This prinicple is extended down to individual topic areas, through the agreement by consensus of topic specific Manuals of Style. I raised an aspect of Tony May's wide ranging changes across rail articls, primarily because he wants to apply them here, but also because it is just a totally wrong approach, to the relevant Wikiproject. The consensus that emerged rejects his approach
  . He ignored the opinions of other project members anyway (essentially saying, I see what you're saying but I'm still right). It is only by virtue that these are low traffic/low interest articles that any of his changes stick (coupled with the fact he is fully prepared to edit war to remove "vandalism", which is what he calls the reversion of his edits).
• right
  .