Talk:LMS Jubilee Class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways. Low Importance: low within UK Railways WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force.

[edit] Links to Names

Does it make sense to have links to the names assigned to each of these locomotives? The links generally seem to go to former colonies or whatever else the engines were named for, which has limited relevance to the topic at hand. It looks pretty much like link-brackets were wrapped around the names of all of them. Dpv 02:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the links go to what they were named after, in this case mostly ships and regions of the Empire. — Dunc|☺ 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely Aboukir, Trafalgar etc are the names of the battles and not warships? GraemeLeggett 16:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Graeme. Armada is a case in point, HMS Armada wasn't launched until 6 years after the engine was named so it must refer to the battle. I would say that the Jubilee namings are for the battle but confused by the RN naming ships after battles. This will need confirming though before any links are changed.Gawthorpe Dave 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split

I propose to split the details section into a new article, as it seems to take up a large proportion of this page. This has already been done successfully with List of SR West Country Class locomotives and List of SR Merchant Navy Class locomotives. Incidentally, I did some trials with making this list sortable, but it seems to be too big for the software to handle, if it is to be properly sortable by date. – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion splitting is unecessary as it would add nothing to the article but make it less useful to the reader as he would then need to refer to 2 articles not 1. If the list of locomotives was split out then it would make sense to treat ALL locomotives articles the same. For completeness I feel it should be left as part of the article so that all LMS named locomotives follow the same format.Gawthorpe Dave 11:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that every reader wants to know the details of every single loco in that much detail. And it's only one more click if they do. The reason I suggested splitting this one is that the table is massive compared with the rest of the article. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The table is massive. However, as the whole article can be seen by a single sweep of the scroll bar I still do not see the need to split out the details. My previous comment therefore stands.