Talk:MGWR Class 9

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Locomotives

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

About removal of Template UK-steam-loco-stub[edit]

Removed this template as while perhaps technically correctly the MGWR was in the UK prior to circa 1922 and during the lifetime of this calls it is now in the Republic of Ireland. I'm not sure there is really a good stub for the Republic of Ireland. One could I suppose use Steam-loco-stub ... but I've just added some content so it's just about a tad over stub. In many ways I'm simply targeting getting rid of all redlinks for for all MGWR classes in the Ireland Steam Locomotives template and while I love to get above a stub it can be hard for some small early MGWR Classes prior to the Atock era where I only have one reference to hand.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotive names concern[edit]

I'm a little concerned three of the locomotive names clash with those of MGWR Class 5 and the were around at the same period. I checked my source and I'm right against that but I've got a feeling the names the last three locomotives may be incorrect. There was also an error on the introduction date of the first loco 1885 instead of 1855 but this cannot be anything other than a typo on the source part.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]