Talk:BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 76084
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2015. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Independent references
editHere are a few that I found on a quick search:
- https://books.google.com/books?id=E2za7qURasIC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=locomotive+76084&source=bl&ots=rksFLqPb4Z&sig=LK6UutTPXxHpFaZgYCNUi8WURz4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW_4zZ6uDJAhXLeD4KHSZvDO04HhDoAQhHMAk#v=onepage&q=locomotive%2076084&f=false
- https://books.google.com/books?id=Xa6OBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=locomotive+76084&source=bl&ots=yg1DL-MNF-&sig=NIjjlexTOFlh5wIZVamPUNkGK7o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi30uP-6uDJAhUIMz4KHVGAD-o4KBDoAQhMMAk#v=onepage&q=locomotive%2076084&f=false
- http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10924969.Horwich_built_steam_locomotive_coming_home_after___650_000_restoration_project/?ref=rss
- http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/10326749.East_Lancashire_steam_train_on_track_to_return_after_50_years/?ref=rss
- http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/69592316/br4-mogul-76084-set-steam-year (references magazine article in Railways Illustrated)
- http://www.adelimited.co.uk/previous-projects/4588453424
- http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/late-august-preserved-railway-steam-events-to-visit/
- http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/locomotives/76084-2/
- http://www.nnrailway.co.uk/steamlocos.php
I'm sure with more time I could find more... Slambo (Speak) 16:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Walford, John (2003). Taylor, R.K. (ed.). A Detailed History of British Railways Standard Steam Locomotives - Volume Two: The 4-6-0 and 2-6-0 Classes. Peterborough: RCTS. pp. 168–211. ISBN 0-901115-93-2. particularly p. 201 --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Images
editI do not think that anyone would disagree that what is required in the article are, the best available, most illustrative of the text, photographs. It is understandable the User: Moylesy98 prefers what they describe as "MY F*CKING IMAGES" but please User: Moylesy98 come to talk to discuss rather than edit war to include them. Meanwhile I will replace the images preferred by those other than the editor who wants their own images.SovalValtos (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)