Talk:British Rail Class 799

Train heating

The infobox shows electric train heating. I doubt if they would use electric train heating when running on the fuel cells. Is there some auxiliary heating system? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would they not? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

They would not want to waste battery capacity on heating. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. It's fuel cells, not batteries. Even so, hydrogen fuel is probably very expensive so I don't think they'd want to waste it. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we please only have a photo of this unit not something it was before?

This unit is now complete, and therefore available to photograph. There's now no point in having a photo of this as it was before. Not having a photograph will hopefully encourage someone to go and take one. Your understanding of this is appreciated. Tony May (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

user:Jeni can you please explain why you keep adding an irrelevant photograph? Tony May (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a photograph? Leave it as is until one is available. It's clearly labelled. Jeni ^(talk) 14:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

user:Jeni, can you please answer the question rather than answering spuriously? Tony May (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Your question has been answered. Jeni ^(talk) 15:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, with all respect - you cannot answer a question with an instruction for me to "leave it as it is" without saying why we should do so. So I'll repeat the question - can you explain to me why you think having an irrelevant photograph is a good idea? Tony May (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think a picture of a 319 is a good idea as the article photo. However, it could be a thumbnail later in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Until a suitable image of the unit in its class 799 guise becomes available, the current image is fine. The only exterior change is that it has been revinyled. Prt580 (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's where you're wrong, user:Prt580, because clearly it has been given additional hydrogen fuel cells as the technical specification has changed. "Until an image is available" - having a wrong image discourages someone to add a relevant one. Tony May (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Well here is a little project for you then. Rather than just sitting there constantly criticising and fighting with everybody who disagrees with you, how about you make an effort to either find an image thats meets your standards, and if that fails, pop up to Warwickshire and take a photograph yourself. Then the problem will go away. As it stands, my opinion remains unchanged. Prt580 (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a fairly typical spurious comment. Your false accusations of "personal attacks" have also been noted. Such comments are unhelpful in trying to build a consensus on the appropriate image for this. Tony May (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES - various quotes that do not seemingly apply to this article

I've gone through MOS:IMAGES, (and that is not perfect by any means) but I wanted to share these relevant quotes. None of this is what I've written. I find it difficult to disagree with any of it however. I am also not cherry picking quotes:

1. "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."
2. "not every article needs images"
3. "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate"
4. "Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value"

And from MOS:LEADIMAGES:

1. "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page."

1. "The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there."
2. "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

It seems that "consensus" is being used to override the WP:MOS. Perhaps someone could address these points and either say why (1) the WP:MOS doesn't apply to this article or (2) why the WP:MOS is in fact wrong. The alternative is in fact that not including a lead image of something we don't have an image of is in fact the only appropriate course of action.

I'd be grateful if people tried to keep their comments on topic. Tony May (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEADIMAGES is a redlink - the shortcut does not exist. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The relevant link is, of course, MOS:LEADIMAGE (without the trailing "s"). --David Biddulph (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

From the MOS page that you selectively quote above:

Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated.

So, the pre-conversion image is fine, and certainly better than a blank space. Its inclusion is fully compliant with MOS:LEADIMAGE despite your claim to the contrary. VQuakr (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The quotes were selective, but broadly representative. I didn't find that paragraph particularly well-written or relevant to this particular case, not least because it is essentially referring to typicality. But since there is only one (prototype) unit, typicality is irrelevant since we should have a photograph of that unit (i.e. 1 of 1). Basically, it follows that the only thing that can look like a class 799 (i.e. "what it is meant to illustrate") is in fact 799001, and the photograph should therefore be of this unit. Whereas in say Class 319 the photograph should be of a typical example (i.e. 1 of many). The assertion that it is "certainly better than a blank space" is the polar opposite of what the MOS actually says - quoted above, so it does NOT follow that it is compliant with the MOS. I do not see any need to change the MOS to allow irrelevant images. Tony May (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I would also add here that I would expect a railway magazine to include a photograph of 799 to accompany a news item on it, and that is the standard that it ought to be judged by. Tony May (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any need to change the MOS to allow irrelevant images. Agreed. The point of disagreement is whether the image of the pre-conversion train is "irrelevant". The only thing that can look like a class 799 (i.e. "what it is meant to illustrate") is in fact 799001. No, this is categorically incorrect. As noted in the MOS quote above, an image of a painting of the train could (in theory at least) be acceptable. So could a line drawing if someone wanted to create one. What are the key visible differences in appearance between a 319 and 799 that lead you to feel this image is not suitable? VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback VQuakr - the cupcake sentence is spectacularly badly written - but if we are going to have to talk about cupcakes, let's talk about them. In an article on cupcake I would expect to see a photograph of a typical cupcake. I would not, for example, expect to see a photograph of a Victoria sponge with a half-baked apologetic comment that we're sorry, but Wikipedia didn't have any photos of cupcakes, so here's the "next best thing".

Moreover - and this is extremely important. By focusing on the "cupcake issue" - you have completely failed to address the other relevant quotations. I note it's a common tactic to try to derail a conversation by taking it off on a tangent. I'd rather you address the points I've made rather than pretending that they don't exist.

The key visible differences pertain to the underframe and other details. Relatively small differences do not override the fact that the lead image must be of the subject - and not anything else. Tony May (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice AGF violation. Sorry to hear you aren't satisfied with my reply, but that's your problem not mine. I addressed all your relevant points already, and your repetition and bold font aren't going to convince anyone. VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

VQuakr - other editors can see the points made above. Ignoring points and suggesting that points are not relevant - could be perceived as hypocritical application of your precious WP:AGF guideline. Tony May (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The image is fine, it is of the subject of the article, albeit in a previous life. The changes in conversion from a 319 to a 799 are not going to show, in a front/side shot like this anyway, as most are internal or below the sole bar. Appears most editors agree and it is only one who on this and other articles, refuses to drop the stick and move on when he cannot get the consensus he wants. Dbmchart (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Dbmchart - yes I can see that consensus is to disregard the MOS policy here. I'm more interested in why this is so. Interestingly, rather than actually considering the points in context, and addressing them, editors are mostly ignoring them, you're closing ranks and cherry picking the parts of policy that you happen to like. My next question is does the MOS need changing? Tony May (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

We are not ignoring MOS, you are just misinterpreting it. This has already been explained to you. VQuakr (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Will all the respect I can muster, the WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies more to you than it does to me, I think, given that the policy has been explained to you above, but you are still choosing to ignore it. Tony May (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your ability to muster respect is abysmal. WP:1AM. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Some editors here may also be interested in: [1] Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving images

At the risk of starting another flame war, an editor has added an auto-animated image to the article which I find very distracting. Furthermore it is added above the infobox which I thought was deprecated. Should it be removed? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been removed from this article, deleted from commons as a copyvio, and the uploader (who is also the person who added the image to this article) has been blocked at Commons for "Uploading unfree files after warnings". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)