Talk:List of Thomas & Friends railway engines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

}}

Off topic chat[edit]

Extended content

Duck the Great Western Engine

If Duck appeared in the seasons 17 and 18, will he stay in the series forever?

Oliver the Great Western Engine

If Oliver returned in the season 18, can he stay in the series forever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.44.186 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy's last appearance is "Calling All Engines!"

Because Daisy's last appearance is "Calling All Engines!", I do not want to see Daisy again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.16.8 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer[edit]

Is Spencer a steam engine or a diesel? In one DVD, the diesels refer to Spencer as a diesel. However, he clearly appears to have what looks to be a steam whistle. Conspirasee1 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer is undoubtedly an LNER A4 steam engine. I don`t know whether there`s a cited reliable source for that, but take my word for it anyway ! --JustinSmith (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Splatter and Dodge[edit]

In the movie only characters section, splatter and dodge aren't there. I think you should add them.

I am member of the WikiProject Thomas. The "Special only" section is for engines who appeared in the Specials that are set with-in the TV Series. TATMR is not set with-in the TV series. --ACase0000 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of relevant link about Gator[edit]

I really can`t be bothered to get into a reversion war, but I have to say removing this link to the article on The Sentinel Steam Motor is a typical example of how Wikipedia should not work.

Article on the Sentinel Columbian Steam Motor locomotive.

More on this in the article on (so called) "original research".

JustinSmith (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to discuss an issue without starting a "reversion war". In fact, it is preferable. This article is about characters in a children's TV show. The link is to a blog post about an obscure locomotive that one of the characters might be based on.
Among the reasons that link doesn't belong here:
  • It's a blog (see WP:ELNO).
  • It's one of several characters that this article covers.
  • The blog is not about the character. (Again, see WP:ELNO.)
  • The article does not have a source connecting the character to the particular type of locomotive.
It is not uncommon for one or another editor to disagree with the policies and guidelines of the project. Basically, this leaves you with three options: 1) Let it go. 2) Discuss the issue on the article's talk page, in hopes of reaching a consensus for a local exception. 3) Work to change the policies and guidelines in question.
Dropping a random comment on the article's talk page that things are not the way they "should" be will not change the article or our guidelines. All it will do is add an entry to a backwater article's talk page archive. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of history here. My son likes Thomas (obviously) and particularly Gator. I was very interested to know more about which loco (if any) Gator was based on, so went straight on Wikipedia. I was rather disappointed to find minimal info and certainly no pictures. So I set about trawling all over the internet and eventually found that site. It was very interesting and is obviously the loco that Gator is based on, in fact it`s probably more certain than any other Thomas engine ! Now the question is this, are we expecting all Wikipedia readers to trawl through the internet possibly finding that site but probably not doing so (it took some finding) ? Is it not far more useful for our readers (that is after all why we`re here) to just link to it ? Personally I don't care whether it`s technically a blog, but what`s the difference and why does that matter anyway ?JustinSmith (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's goal is to provide reliable relevant information. By providing that link, we would in effect be saying that the character is definitely based on that engine and the blog is a reliable source of information. We do not know either of those to be true. Next up would be identifying various other characters as being based on various designs and adding blogs about those designs to the page. Eventually, the page is a mix of information from reliable sources, guesses by various Wikipedia editors and links to a random assortment of blogs. That might be fine for some readers, but it is antithetical to Wikipedia's goals. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, other than I don`t agree with a single thing you`ve said !
1 We can be more certain than for any Thomas & Friends engine that Gator is based on the Sentinel Steam Motor. What possible other loco could it be based on ?
2 I read quite a few websites, I also know a fair amount about railways and locomotives (I`ve got all the Railway Magazines back to 1941, so far ! ) and that one seems pretty reliable to me. It`s even got the original plans of the loco on there ! Why would anyone go to that much trouble and then just invent a load of the rest ? It doesn`t compute does it ? How do you define "reliable" ? ! ?
3 I think we should be thinking why we`re really here, would Wikipedia readers like to read that website ? I think we know the answer don`t we ?
4 Wikipedia`s goals are to interest and educate its readers, not strive for some impossible to achieve 100% accuracy, If it really did try to do the latter 90% of it would end up in the recycle bin. But, as it happens, in this case, I`m sure that Gator is based on that engine and that website is sufficiently accurate and reliable.
As I said I can`t be bothered to get into a big war about it I`ve got better things to do with my time, after all it`s not me who`ll it`ll affect, it`s any future readers of the page who want to know more about Gator. - JustinSmith (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I look Gator and I immediately knew: THAT is CLEARLY a Sentinel Steam Motor. In fact, it is so obvious that anyone -- without specialized knowledge of obscure steam motor designs would know it in an instant. No one could possibly question this simple fact. It is more obvious than any other fact in the world. So obvious is this fact, that no one anywhere even bothers to acknowledge it.
As a contrarian, however, I can put aside all of the common knowledge I have about obscure steam engine designs (you know: the kind of stuff everyone learns in pre-school, after learning basic shapes, but before learning the alphabet). I say to myself, "Self, what if -- somehow -- everything we know is wrong: Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship, planets do not orbit the Sun, the flu isn't caused by swamp gases and Gator isn't based on the Sentinel Steam Motor? What if the book is about media crushing creativity, the planets orbit gravitational midpoints between themselves and the Sun and the flu is caused by a virus? The only reliable fact remaining in my life would be that an obscure character in a kids' TV show is based on a steam motor design that is so obscure that they only source available about it is a random blog written by god-alone-knows-who."
Consider this "fact" to be challenged, as in: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." WP:V
That a random blog "seems pretty reliable to you" is immaterial. It is still a blog, as in "avoid providing external links to...blogs". It is still off-topic, as in "avoid providing links to...sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". WP:ELNO.
I think we can all agree that whether or not young children (who watch the show) or their parents (whose interest in the show is whether it is appropriate and/or "educational") have little interest in reading obscure technical details about an obscure steam engine. Perhaps I'm wrong. Write a book about this obscure engine. Sell billions of copies to this underserved audience. When you are interviewed, be sure to mention Gator.
I'm not saying we must be 100% accurate. I'm saying that ignoring accuracy and relevance are quite contrary to why we are here. I am restoring the request for a cite, per WP:V, one of our core policies. If the material does not find a reliable source, I will eventually remove it. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to all this is here (and the article below it).
I would only point out that if you`re deleting every contribution which is not cited to a reliable source (whatever that is) you`ll be deleting a lot, including most of the page "Railway Engines (Thomas and Friends)" !
I don`t believe there`s anything more to say on this.JustinSmith (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unaware of what a reliable source is, I would encourage you to read Identifying reliable sources before editing further and especially before stating what Wikipedia "should" be. Wikipedia has several core policies that seem to conflict with yours. If you find yourself unwilling to follow them, you will have a rough time of it here, I'm afraid. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Surely these pictures should clinch it, the similarity is utterly uncanny, possibly more so than any other Thomas character......--JustinSmith (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gator v Sentinel columbian steam loco 600W.jpg
Gator is the Sentinel Columbian steam loco

The largest engine on Sodor[edit]

The sentence "s/he is the largest engine on Sodor" appears at least three times in this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.215.189 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock the page[edit]

C'mon, can you unblock this page, so we can edit again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.106.255 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much vandalism. You may request an edit here. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Railway engines (Thomas & Friends). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"supporting-lead role"[edit]

A supporting role supports the the story line(s) of the lead characters. A particularly successful supporting role might be spun off as a lead role; it is then no longer a supporting role. A "supporting-lead role" would be an oxymoron, similar to a "hill-mountain". A supporting role is smaller than a lead role as a hill is smaller than a mountain. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant[edit]

Yes, ACase0000, this is redundant. As I pointed out, the text already said, the character was "...introduced in Season 19". Your addition, that the character made its "...debut in season 19" is redundant. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now see you have "reworded" other material in the section, omitting the redundant material, making this discussion redundant. Feel free to comment any way. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

This edit, back in 2009, is a clear copyright violation from thomasandfriends.com. Articles on shows for kids are often edited by kids, so this isn't too surprising.

That said, the text is not the least bit encyclopedic in tone and should not have lasted so long based on that alone. That it lasted 7 years indicates to me that this article has received little attention and is long overdue for some spring cleaning. Here are my general guidelines: Anything that looks like in-universe trivia goes. Our manual of style recommends several things that I will take as gospel. Unsourced material that is unlikely to have been in the primary source is likely fan guesses and will be removed. Subjective wording, allegories, similes and other such writing is not encyclopedic and will be removed.

In an encyclopedia, "Clouds don't last long in Thomas's world" means there is some sort of atmospheric phenomena in that world which causes clouds to dissipate rapidly. On a promotional website (or in a children's TV show) it means sadness and conflict are soon resolved. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a children's show.

MOS says not to use contractions (other than in direct quotes). Contractions will be removed.

Yes, Billyjoebob might look a lot like a particular type of engine someone who is really into trains spotted. This does not mean that Billyjowbob is based on that engine or that an encyclopedia should say that he is (or looks like he might be). Find a reliable source and cite it or the guess will be removed.

Redundant information will be removed. If the same thing is said repeatedly it will be taken out. Repetitive statements will be excised. I will edit to avoid having the article say the same thing again and again. Sections that say one thing more than one time will be reworked.

This article is about fictional characters. Nothing should be presented "in-universe". Example: Thomas is not usually happy because he does not exist and, as a result, does not have emotions of any kind. Thomas is presented as being happy.

Questions, comments or concerns? - SummerPhDv2.0 15:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot[edit]

If you add a cite to a webpage and all you give is a link (the URL) without citing the name of the page, the date you added it, etc., you are leaving the page prone to link rot. Suppose you cite "www.reliablesource.com/important_info". At some point in the future, that page may be rewritten, moved to a new location or removed from the web entirely. If the page is rewritten, the information you added might not be there any longer and your addition might be removed at "not in source cited". If the page is moved or removed from the web, an editor in the future might try to find an archived copy and might find one. If not, there is nothing left to do but remove the cite and ask for a new source.

Such was the case with my edit here. The page either has been removed or renamed (or the URL was incorrect to begin with). Someone had marked it as a dead link some time ago, but there has been no way to fix it as archive.org does not have a working copy of the page. As a result, those four bits of info are now marked at "cite needed". When I come around next to work on cleaning out this mess, I will remove those bits if there are not new sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, guesswork, scope of article[edit]

There are basically two types of articles on Wikipedia that list fictional characters: 1) Articles discussing characters whose notability is such that it has escaped the fictional universe it is part of. As an example, Superman is regularly referred to and discussed in sources that are otherwise unconnected to any of the comics/TV shows/films in which the character appears. That article cites sources ranging from the New York Times to academic journals discussing topics ranging from ink colors to social identity formation in children. 2) Articles where a list of characters would be appropriate for the main article on the show/film/etc., but would be rather long to include.

The basic distinction here is the type of information included. An article on Superman, for example, includes substantial information about the character: origin, family, abilities, evolution of the character over time, etc. All of this information can be cited to sources other than the original stories. It is absurdly easy to find sources saying that Superman came from the fictional planet of Krypton.

This article is clearly of the second type. Politicians are not compared to characters in the show. News stories do not mention events in the show as elements of comparison (compare, for example, news of an invention that allows users to -- in a fashion -- see through walls: "like Superman").

The Thomas series is primarily of interest to children and those with a special interest in trains. This, unfortunately leads to two types of problem edits here, both well intended, both inappropriate here. Kids will add information that is trivial and/or misunderstood and/or very poorly written, etc. Those with a special interest in trains tend to want to spout knowledge about trains, much of it only connecting to the show through assumptions, guesses and/or application of specialize knowledge. Superman does not, for example, contain original research guessing where Krypton might have been, how hot the capsule he traveled in would have become upon entry to Earth's atmosphere, how large a crater would have been created by the capsule based on how fast it would have been traveling and the capsule's presumed mass, etc. We can, however, find numerous blogs and fanzines discussing these very topics.

Much of this artcile currently reflects these problems. Various characters are said to be "based on" this or that engine, often with additional claims of the numbers or colors having additional significance and changes that may have been made from the original.

Yes, there are blogs about Thomas characters, engines, toys and books. Anyone can create one and fill it with whatever they want. The information might be 100% correct or stuff they dreamed up one rainy Sunday. They are, by and large, not reliable sources. About the only exception is blogs from an official source (such as the production company) and then only for very basic information.

Yes, there are reliable sources about trains giving design info, specifications, history, etc. However, if they do not discuss a character in Thomas, they simply do not belong here. (An article on spacecraft designed for re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, posted by NASA is a reliable source, but cannot be used in Superman if the source does not discuss Superman.)

I have gone through and tagged a lot of claims that various characters are (or "might be" or "appear to be") based on various real-world engines. These likely originated with people with a special interest in trains and blogs/wikis/etc. they have written. They might be correct. They might not. Only the shows' creators and authors know what they based anything on. If we have independent reliable sources discussing it, the information might have a place here. Otherwise, there are certainly other wikis and blogs where you can add whatever you want based on whatever policies they do or do not have and enforce.

I will be cleaning out the "citation needed" information in a week or so. If you would like to keep any of it or restore it once I have removed it, please consider the information challenged and provide in-line citations to independent reliable sources, per WP:V. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"officially"[edit]

This article has numerous confusing uses of the word "officially". For example, we had "Paxton, is a diesel who officially appeared in Season 16 even though he appeared in Season 15 and Day of the Diesels."

If the intent here is to say when the character is first shown, we should be saying "'Cartoon character was first shown in..." or something similar. If there is some difference between a character's "introduction" and first appearance, it is not clear here.

As there seems to be very little response to discussion requests on these pages, I'll let this sit for a few days (on the off chance that someone will clarify), then go through and clean out the rubbish as best as I can. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Series 20[edit]

Series 20 is, at this point, unreleased. As a result, the show is not available as a source for voice cast. Any additions for series 20 must cite a reliable source, even if you say your edit is an "UPDATE". Additions for series 20 without a source will be reverted as many times as needed and, if required, the article will be protected. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Island[edit]

Article currently reads in part Hiro is an old Oliver Island (Japanese style) tender engine. (my emphasis) What does Oliver Island mean in this context? It's referred to later in the section as well: earning himself a fine reputation on both Oliver Island and Sodor, then he had to wait for parts from Oliver Island and still later he was sent back to Oliver Island. There seems to be a fairly major part of this plot sequence we are missing. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant wording[edit]

"Tooty first appeared in season 5 and has appeared in almost every season ever since, except seasons 7, 9, 11, 12, 18 and 20. She even appeared in Thomas the Tank Engine goes Quantity Surveying."

  • "almost" is redundant as we continue on to "except..."
  • "ever" adds no meaning to the sentence
  • "seasons" is redundant as the "except" clearly refers to seasons
  • "even" adds no meaning and implies some sort of remarkable nature.
  • Editors subject to an active block are not allowed to edit Wikipedia until their block expires or is lifted. Any/all of their edits may be reverted per WP:EVADE. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tense[edit]

Most wording that implies events in the shows happen in the past is "in-universe" wording, written as if the newest season is today and older seasons are in the past. This is an encyclopedia article talking about fictional characters. How things are in series 1 is how things are in series 1. They are not how things "were" in series 1.

If you do not understand or disagree, please discuss the issue here.

I am making the changes in the article. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Series appearances[edit]

That a particular character appears in series 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 and 19 (or whatever), is far too detailed for an encyclopedia. This also applies to "brief" appearances (sometimes mistakenly called "cameos").

If you do not understand or do not agree, please discuss the issue.

I am making the change in the article. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Thomas & Friends railway engines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Actors[edit]

Some Member on Wikipedia keeps changing the VA's for Thomas & Friends and providing incorrect information to Viewers. I.e stating Rackstraw voiced James in the U.K. from "TAB" onwards and Donald from "SLOTLT" onwards. I suggest that whoever is doing this, PLEASE STOP as Wikipedia is an information site not one for you to state facts which are incorrect. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question is Eik Corell. Please stop providing incorrect information or I shall request wikipedia to block from all Thomas & Friends pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCorleone7 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protect this page[edit]

Enough is enough. We need to protect this paged so that only registered users can edit. This anonymous person kept adding characters in the List of Thomas & Friends railway engines that don't fit in the Standard-gauge category and erasing some that do fit in the category. We keep reverting the edits, but no matter what we do, this anonymous person kept doing. That page must be protected. Does anybody agree with me? Martinc1994 (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ee2mba (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Thomas_%26_Friends_railway_engines&oldid=1173672636"