Category talk:LMS Fairburn 2-6-4T 42085

Proposed move

It has been proposed to move this category from "LMS Fairburn 2-6-4T 42085" to "Fairburn 2-6-4T 42085". I would oppose this move for the following reasons:

• The proposed move goes against the approach used throughout Wikipedia and Commons, i.e. [company]+[designer]+[class]+[number], the number generally being the last that was assigned. Under this logic, it can only be LMS Fairburn or BR Fairburn.
• Regardless of manufacturer, 42085 was constructed as per the 1945 Fairburn LMS design.
• For practical purposes, having a sub-category with a different name to the parent makes categorisation more difficult as this category does not show up in HotCat.

The compromise would therefore be to move to "BR Fairburn". Ravenseft (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

the approach used throughout Wikipedia and Commons

I would challenge this assumption. We certainly can use [company]+[designer]+[class] — so Category:LMS Fairburn 2-6-4T makes sense - except we don't even have that, it's Category:LMS Fairburn Class 4 2-6-4T instead. This format isn't extended across all classes. Most of our locomotive classes instead use either [company]+' Class '+[designator] (e.g. Category:GNR Class N2) or [company]+[designator]+' class' (e.g. Category:SR Q1 class). We don't even have consistency between an embedded and capitalised " Class " or a suffix " class". Where there is a clear designator, there's no use made of the designer (see the LNER A1s vs most other LNER classes). It's just not the case that there is some clear, prescriptive naming format in use already.

This also has problems when extended to individual locos, where the class outlived the initial building company. Category:LMS Fairburn Class 4 2-6-4T were built by the LMS, so should stay under that and definitely not be renamed as Category:BR Fairburn Class 4 2-6-4T. Yet should we enforce "consistency" to the level that it becomes a mis-labelling of individual Brighton-built BR locos as "LMS"? We don't really need a strong category name here at all, other than the loco serial number and the parent cat. Any implied "identity" to that category comes mostly from the parent cat, or the descriptive text, and not some contrived short-form naming. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the approach is not followed as consistently as it perhaps should be and I have in the past moved "class" to "Class". The designer should only be shown if the loco is generally referred to with that designation, i.e. SR Q1 Class and not SR Bulleid Q1 Class. It's also useful for distinguishing between locos of the same configuration built for the same company but by different designers, e.g. Ivatt/Fowler/Fairburn 2-6-4Ts. The [company] should, in my view, always be mentioned in the parent cat's name, even if this means (in cases such as this one) using a different company prefix in subcats for individual locos of the same class built by successor companies. Ravenseft (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with "BR Fairburn" for any examples (particularly 2073 & 2085) that were post LMS builds. Category:Preserved LMS Fairburn 2-6-4T probably ought to be Category:Preserved BR Fairburn 2-6-4T too, as these are the only survivors. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)