Talk:BR Standard Class 4 2-6-4T

File:Standard 4 No 80100.jpg

What's going on here? There are two puzzling edits by User:Mjroots which not only remove an image, but then try to speedily delete that image (surely an excessive reaction, whatever the outcome here).

Article

• remove image claiming to show 80100 in steam, loco never restored in preservation

Image

• This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because Unencyclopedic.

The editor's assertion seems to be that because one on-line database describes the loco as "unrestored", there is thus some problem with a modern photo that seems to show it in steam. Now unless they're claiming that the photo is either faked / photoshopped / taken through the windows of the Tardis, then I'd suggest that this photo suggests the database is either wrong or simply not applicable at the time the photo was taken. Note that the database entry itself claims to be last updated in 2005, so that's a few years since for the restoration to be completed.

Preserved UK locos are 40+ years out of service and boiler tickets last for 10 years. Any preserved loco is thus likely to have had three or four periods when it could be described as "unrestored", even when it's one of the hard-working stalwarts of a railway that has been in service in what could just as well be described as "almost continuously". To react in this way and try to turn the loco into an un-loco seems most excessive, let alone the question of WP:BITE around trying to speedily delete a photo of it! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I apologise if the nomination of the photo seemed to be bitey. It was not my intention. I did ask via an edit note if this should be taken to WP:FFD. The removal from this article was done in good faith, as I believe the manipulation of images to misrepresent facts is not in keeping with the core aim of an encyclopedia.

Comment I nominated the file for deletion [before I removed it from the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, I did post on the talk page of the file a detailed rationale of why I believe the file should be deleted. I also left an edit note on the file to that effect.

Thirdly, I will answer Andy Dingley's query. The photo is a photoshopped fake. The loco has never been restored from ex-Barry Scrapyard condition. This is confirmed by the Bluebell Railway itself. Mjroots (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Raised at WT:UKRail. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems convincing. Just a bit puzzling as to why anyone would bother? I'll revert my changes.

Is it possible to tell (given their scarcity and the background loco) what the source for this photo was, possibly an image we already have? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a photo of 80151 that the uploader either took or photoshopped. Mjroots (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy, as it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest it should be taken to WP:IFD instead. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture is at Horsted Keynes on the Bluebell, and the loco behind is Sharpthorne (see File:Loco Sharpthorne.JPG which was taken by Mjroots!!). A quick Google image search of "80100 standard" (or similar) and "80151 standard" (or "...engine") didn't reveal an obvious source image (checked the first 20 pages).

Is it possible that it was not photoshopped, but rather that 80151 was run in the guise of 80100 at some time? Such masquerading is not uncommon. If this is the case, then the photo can be included with a suitable caption note. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a possibility. However, even if it was 80154 running as 80100, it is still not a photo of 80100 in steam at Horsted Keynes. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Raised as WP:FFD per Tivedshambo's suggestion above. Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just rename the damn thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename is inappropriate - it's a faked photo, apparently showing the wrong numberplate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why delete

Sir who decided to delete the edits should remove them Jordy.madigan (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Context? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)