Talk:British Rail Class 117

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis (talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in British Rail Class 117

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of British Rail Class 117's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BRBDMU220":

• From British Rail Class 143: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DP236, DP237. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 128: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DX501, DX502. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 124: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DP316, DR201, DT212, DU205. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 141: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DP228, DP229. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 121: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DQ221, DS201. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 142: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DP234, DP235. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 150: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DP230, DP231, DP238, DP239, DP242, DP243, DR202, DR203. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 144: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DP240, DP241, DR205. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 155: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DP248, DP249. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 120: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DP204, DP205, DQ101, DQ303, DQ304, DT210, DT217. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• From British Rail Class 156: Vehicle Diagram Book No. 220 for Diesel Multiple Unit Trains (Railcars) (PDF). Derby: British Railways Board. 1982. DP244, DP245. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Reference named "TRC1":

• From British Rail Class 323: "Class 323". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 14 October 2007. Retrieved 31 January 2016.
• From British Rail Class 144: "Class 144". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 120: "Class 120, 179". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
• From British Rail Class 142: "Class 142". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
• From British Rail Class 143: "Class 143". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 156: "Class 156". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 141: "Class 141". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 151: "Class 151". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 8 November 2005. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
• From British Rail Class 153: "Class 153". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 121: "Class 121, 149". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 128: "Class 128". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 124: "Class 124, 180, 181". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
• From British Rail Class 150: "Class 150". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From British Rail Class 155: "Class 155". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005.
• From British Rail Class 129: "Class 129". The Railway Centre. Archived from the original on 9 March 2005. Retrieved 24 February 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance templates and galleries

Moved from User talk:Danners430

You reversed my revision on British Rail Class 117 referencing the livery of 59494 “Chloe”. It’s not in green and cream, nor has it been for about 50 years (and there’s no reference for it being in that livery recently). It’s in chocolate and cream on one side with the skin removed on the other. I’ve worked on the vehicle, I would know! N. M. McLaughlin (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, no other vehicle in the entire list has a citation for livery. There’s no valid reason to reverse my edit on ground of “no citation” when you’re returning it to something that

1) isn’t cited itself

2) is disproven by a 20 second google search

3) isn’t required for anything else in the same list N. M. McLaughlin (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You working on it is original research. If you wish to have consistency, I’ll happily remove all the other unsourced entries in that list - sources are required for all of them. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

And do you have any positive to add to this article or is removal of encyclopedic information your aim? The Banner talk 02:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

My aim is to have sourcing for information. If that can’t be provided (I’ve checked and can’t find reliable sources for the above), then it shouldn’t be on Wikipedia per WP:V. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

And having just seen your edits to British Rail Class 117 might I remind you of WP:AGF? The majority of the table is still unsourced, so why on earth is the addition of a maintenance banner bad faith? Care to elaborate? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Because your edit summery makes it clear that your aim is to remove encyclopedic information, not to improve the article with sources. Your summery: Add banner as precursor to deletion. And why you removed a relevant gallery is also a mystery to me, as it gives relevant information. The Banner talk 12:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:V: Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added. I am literally quoting (or paraphrasing if you so prefer) part of Wikipedia’s own verifiability policy. Under that same policy, I would be perfectly entitled to straight up remove any unsourced content - but I prefer not to do that, I prefer to add maintenance templates to encourage the addition of sources (like you did). Would you rather I simply deleted anything that’s unsourced? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to move this discussion to the article talk page so it can be properly discussed with other relevant parties. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify what's going on here - N. M. McLaughlin made an unsourced change, although that has now been resolved thanks to The Banner (many thanks).

The current dispute seems to be (in my opinion bizarrely) about the use of a More Sources Section maintenance banner in the Preservation section. This was added as many of the vehicles in the table don't have a source - per WP:V, they should really all be sourced, which is what the maintenance banner is about.

Additionally, The Banner added a gallery to the article, which I personally dispute should be included as it goes against WP:GALLERY - the images don't add to the narrative of the article, and would be much better placed inline, or perhaps in individual table rows.

Would other editors like to weigh in here, as it's obviously counter-productive for an argument to be happening hidden away on a user talk page? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @N. M. McLaughlin, @The Banner and @Black Kite (although for the last of these I fully understand you may not have any opinion at all - I just noted you were discussing this with The Banner) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that the maintenance template has been removed again. As per the instructions contained within the templates itself, it should be removed when the problem is resolved. If it's contentious it should be discussed first... there's been a discussion ongoing on my talk page and now here since yesterday, and you decided to remove it first without discussing. What's the justification for removing a more sources required template from a section that requires more sources? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the gallery: I made a mistake with one of the photos, showing a different class. But removing the pictures altogether is over the top. The Banner talk 12:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I see no harm in adding a few images inline or, if they're images of specific vehicles, in the fleet table. My reason for removal was WP:GALLERY, which strongly encourages considering placing images inline before using a gallery. There are valid uses for galleries, such as a gallery of a company's fleet... I just don't feel like this is one of them. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

But you just removed the pictures. The Banner talk 13:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• This is the usual "it's very difficult to find reliable sources about vehicles on preserved lines, so incorrect and out-of-date information remains in the article". I remember a discussion about this recently, in that 31459 is shown as being at the Wensleydale Railway in the British Rail Class 31 article, despite the fact that it hasn't been there for years. My personal take on data in tables like this is that if an editor knows a piece of information is wrong, but they can't source that information, then if the existing information isn't sourced either (which it isn't in this case) it should be OK to leave it blank - having nothing in that table cell is better than false information. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  I would agree with this approach... the problem is there are a fair number of entries in the Notes table which don't have a source. Should we compromise by, if we can't find a source, removing location and notes? This is why I thought a simple maintenance section header would work - it's designed for exactly this... we know there's a problem with sourcing (and as you say it can't always be fixed), so we tag it as such Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  You have seen me add a lot of sources in the last day. When I can find them, you should be able to find them too. Removing unsourced info without trying to find sources is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 13:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Notes column in preservation list

Possibly a completely unrelated discussion, but do we really need to put everything in the Notes column of the list of preserved vehicles inside small tags? What benefit does that have? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Successor

Moving this here because the discussion on the user talk page is just unvanigatable now, and it going round in citcles.

Goose Eureka has added the Successor parameter to the infobox, which is very useful indeed. However there are a few issues.

• Firstly, the source they've used for the 165/166s is a personal blog - as I've tried to explain multiple times, this is not a reliable source, it is a self-published source.
• Apparently the Key Model World source can verify the 165/166s, however it's behind a paywall. My concern is that Goose Eureka described the article as talking about "Networker Turbos" - I've tried multiple times to ask them whether the article explicitly mentions the classes 165 and 166 by number, or whether it only names the "Networker Turbo" family. This would change how we can list the successor, but no straight answer so far.

@Goose Eureka - firstly, Honda Wanderer is, quite simply, not a reliable source - it is a personal blog, and is therefore not reliable. I don't know what else I can say here. Secondly, if you are using the KMW citation to verify the 165/166s, can you please give a straight answer as to how they describe them - by class number or by "Networker Turbo"? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The page on KMW only uses class numbers. Goose Eureka (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

OK - and just to check, the KMW page talks about the 165/166s as well as the 156s? Apologies, just clarifying in my brain...! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

KMW talks about the class 156, in scotland; and the route out of paddington, which then used the 165 and 166 as its replacment there. Goose Eureka (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Magic - As I said below then, I'll remove the unreliable Honda Wanderer source and apply the KMW source to the 156, 165 and 166s then. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Goose Eureka (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Just cos then I'll go into the article, remove the unreliable source, and apply the KMW source to the 156, 165 and 166s and we can move on. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Goose Eureka: - per the message on your talk page, please provide the full quote with the exact wording in the Key Model World article that you say supports "talks about the class 156, in scotland; and the route out of paddington, which then used the 165 and 166 as its replacment there". Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)