Talk:Chiltern Railways
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
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 |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways. |
[edit] Infobox Image
What a rubbish and quality-less image that has replaced good enough pictures, I have reverted this pointless and useless change. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Assume good faith! :) SeveroTC 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite. The edit summary that made the offending change [1] read "Swapped pictures around to fully populate current fleet table without duplication", which sounded a reasonable thing to do. Unfortunately, I agree that the image put in the infobox was of a poor quality, especially for such a prominent one. So it was OK to put the other one back, but not to make remarks about it being "pointless" and "useless". --RFBailey (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- The replaced image has no author information, so this is hardly an improvement if the image gets deleted from commons. MickMacNee (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite. The edit summary that made the offending change [1] read "Swapped pictures around to fully populate current fleet table without duplication", which sounded a reasonable thing to do. Unfortunately, I agree that the image put in the infobox was of a poor quality, especially for such a prominent one. So it was OK to put the other one back, but not to make remarks about it being "pointless" and "useless". --RFBailey (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
