Talk:Greatest Gathering

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways § Greatest Gathering

WP:COSMETICBOT

Please could edits such as Special:Diff/1310918380 be minimised, they create huge amounts of diff-noise, hiding any useful contributions made (see WP:COSMETICBOT). Much better it is make smaller, individual edits, reducing the risk that anything goes wrong, and continuing to allow the use of the diff-tools we have.

Thanks, —Sladen (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but no. WP:COSMETICBOT does not apply to the above, as it is neither a bot edit nor a cosmetic edit. That is a user script, not a bot. And it’s not a purely cosmetic edit - that same edit also moved a section (no objection to you undoing that by the way, given it was misleadingly named it does make more sense now), commented out unsourced text and did a date format audit which corrected MOS:DATE errors in the text.

Many editors explicitly prefer one large edit to many small edits for the simple reason that many small edits clutter up the page history and watchlists. For that reason there is no policy either way - put simply I prefer to do one large edit instead of many small edits, and I will continue to do so unless there is consensus that it should not be done. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:MEATBOT "Purely cosmetic changes performed by a human editor in a bot-like fashion may also be considered disruptive." —Sladen (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

For the second time, it’s not a purely cosmetic edit. I’ve already detailed what the rest of my edit entailed. And show me exactly how it’s bot-like. Do us a favour and have a read of WP:AGF. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Exhibits section

Does anyone have any suggestions for how to format the Exhibits section differently so it takes up less space in the article? As it is the section is enormous. It contains excellent information which should absolutely be retained… I just wonder if there’s a better way of displaying the info so it’s more condensed. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

British Rail Class 08 Shunters were originally listed together on one line—changed in Special:Diff/1310828417. It might work in some cases: eg. Class 08, 37, 50. —Sladen (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

That’s one option, aye - I was thinking more along the lines of a table perhaps or some other method of reducing space Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

As comparison, has similar information displayed in a table format (note: CC-BY-NC-SA licence, incompatible with Wikipedia). —Sladen (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Ironically, tables actually take up even more space! But it would aid in structuring the content a bit more… perhaps that’s a good compromise - a table of exhibits instead of the current flat list? If you don’t have any objections, I’ll put something together this morning :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Positive and constructive contributions to Wikipedia are always welcome. Contributions, so far, have been content removal and reverts. By all means, try something creative, experiment with a table, maybe it works. —Sladen (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm on holiday, which is why I haven't done the table yet (on my phone, not a desktop). Reverts are valid contributions - sorry if you don't like them. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Geoff Marshall coverage

Edit Special:Diff/1312929612 removed the Geoff Marshall coverage from Greatest Gathering#Further reading—interviewing various of the organising committee members:

• Marshall, Geoff (2025-08-07). "The Greatest Gathering, Ever!". Geoff Tech. Retrieved 2025-09-23 – via Youtube.

—Sladen (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly argue that that is WP:UGC, and as such isn’t reliable to be used as a source or further reading. There’s no editorial oversight of Geoff’s content, which is a criteria for a WP:RS. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Traction engines

Does anyone know the traction engine/steam roller industry-magazines well? Perhaps magzines copies (eg. September/October 2025)? The National Traction Engine Trust (NTET) had an stand and a few road vehicles in steam; at least:

• FX 8715 (built 1924) Aveling & Porter road roller
• YB 7976 (built 1926) Clayton & Shuttleworth/Babcock & Wilcox road roller, No. 113
• KM 7100 Morning Star (built 1926) Aveling & Porter traction engine

Hoping to find WP:RS citations. —Sladen (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I've got access to "Old Glory" via Readly, and the October 2025 issue does the trick, so I've added them to the "Non-rail based exhibits" section. The article lists the same three engines as above, and includes a photo of the 2 rollers. Mwsmith20 (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)