Talk:Richard Trevithick

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

How hard could this be to turn into a GA?

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding "Penydarren" versus "Pen-Y-darren", as far as I know, the former is what is used now. The latter may have been used then, but if so I'd be willing to bet it was actually "Pen-y-darren", no capital 'y'. Varitek 02:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the version with the hyphens was the one used then. At least for the locomotive/mine. I definitely remember this being in too many books. One has to remember that these are Welsh place names as rendered by Englishmen, too ... --Morven 05:20, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia policy about which place name to use when the name has changed? Do we refer, e.g., to Bombay or Mumbai when talking about events that happened pre-name-change? Varitek 19:34, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy in the general case is to use whichever name is more common among English speakers. I don't think it's so clear cut in a case like this.

If the article is correct that the locomotive itself was nameless and it's known by the name of the place it was used at, then probably the current usage is good here.

On the other hand, if the locomotive ITSELF was officially named for the place, then we'd use the spelling used then. I'd say the naming is fine as is right now -- but that whoever used 'Pen-y-darren' wasn't making their own spelling, but following some book or other, because this usage is quite common in railway history books. --Morven 08:46, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Penydarren was Samuel Homfray's ironworks. I do not think the locomortive had a specific name. The railway (or tramroad) did not just go to Penydarren and is best described as the Merthyr tramroad. Peterkingiron 08:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

This article is rather overwhelmed with pictures at the moment, they certainly need organising better, if no-one else does this, then I might well do it. G-Man 00:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree and hope the article as I have just left it is an improvement. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete

This article seems to be heavily focused on road and rail transport. However Trevithick was more important in the long run as the person who introduced for this introduction of steam engines that worked above atmossphereic pressure. The present article is incomplete in failing to say enough about the rest of life. Peterkingiron 08:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Substantial New Material

I have just added quite a bit of new material (eg. South American exploits, reaction engine etc) much of it from Richard's biography by James Hodge (from the Science Museum, bookshop London which will hopefully address the above comment in part. I have tried to merge it with the existing article and make it flow reasonably and I have not actually deleted much at all, just moved it around quite a bit. Further tidy-ups welcome.ChrisAngove 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have done a very good job in expanding what was previously a grossly inadequate article. I have made a few minor adjustments today, unfortunately some of them while inadvertently not logged in. Peterkingiron 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, my pleasure. I hope to contribute more in due course and I would like to see it as a class A article eventually. Its a good excuse to spend lots of holidays in Cornwall visiting the second hand bookshops!ChrisAngove 13:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring over England / English vs United Kingdom / British

A large number of Cornish people do not identify as English or see themselves as from Cornwall, 'England' for reasons relating to the ongoing debate about the past, present and future constitutional status of Cornwall, together with many people's sense of a distinct Cornish cultural identity - see Constitutional status of Cornwall and Revert warring over England/English vs United Kingdom/British. Since 2001 the Cornish have had their own unique ethnic UK Census code '06' similar to the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English, 2001 Ethnic Codes, and on many official forms it is now possible to register as Cornish as opposed to English.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.75.62 (talk) Aug 5 2006

The above is simply untrue, as can be seen by simply following the link provided: there is no separate "ethnic code" for Cornish in any Census, including the latest 2011 one. It is not the job of Wikipedia to pander to people's fantasies. "A large number of Cornish people" are deeply embarrassed by the antics of a handful of very loud-mouthed delusional people with no grasp of history, migration patterns within Britain or, basically, anything real. 77.101.233.240 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm genuinely 'gobsmacked' that we have people asserting that Richard Trevithick was "English" and not "Cornish" or even "British".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.68.177 (talk) Mar 10 2008

Catch Me who Can

I did a google seach for Trevithick "Torrington Square", and found 173 matches. I did another search for Trevithick "Euston Square" and found 294 matches. The majority opinion is that the 1808 circular railway was in Euston Square, not Torrington Square. Euston Square no longer exists, but there is a black plaque on Gower Street, close to the entrance on UCL, saying that Trevithick's engine was displayed near here. That plaque is quite a long was from Torrington Square. The illustration that is used in this article is held in a library called "Science and Society" http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?txtkeys1=Catch Their website refers to Euston Square. This poster http://www.fromheretohere.com/euston_sq/index.html also exists as a mosaic on the walls of Embankment station. It says that the site was Euston Square, not Torrington Square. Ogg 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the site is underneath the Chadwick building, University College London. 19 June 2007

The view expressed by Ogg is out of date. The location in Torrington Square <NO - I should have said the planned Carmarthen Square - now the site of the Chadwick Building> is a recent archaeological discovery, and it is not surprising that older sources, such as the plaque cited (a serivative source) should repeat the older claim. The correctness of a view does not sepend on how many Ghits it gets, but how good the sources for the rival views are. In this case, the source for Torrington Square is a peer-reviewed journal, descrining the results of archaeological work: you could hardly get better. Peterkingiron 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the situation. Your edit of 31 March 2007 at 15.09 deleted Torrington Square and replaced it with a reference to the site being under part of the UCL (but you did not then state which part). You gave as a reference "Tyler.N" Trans. Newcomen Soc.

My understanding is that this person is Nick Tyler the head of the UCL Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, which is in the UCL Chadwick Building. Can you say what part or department of UCL is over the site so that the article's existing text can be corrected. 19 June 2007 Presumably he is referring to this paper by Nick Tyler: http://www.newcomen.com/abstracts/abstracts_2005to6.htm. As far as I can see, it doesn't dispute the idea that the site was Euston Square. Instead he is simply being more specific, since Euston Square was pretty huge. Ogg 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This comes of writing things without rechecking references, with the result that I got the place names wrong. My point was that the archaeological discovery made under the Chadwick Building revises previous interpretations as to the precise location. In my recent comment, I mixed up the names of squares: where I referred to it being at Torrington Square, I was trying to refer to Carmarthen Square, a square that seems to ahve been planned but never completed. I understand that to be not far from Euston Square. Unfortuantely, my familiarity with the geography of London is clearly inadequate, and this has led me to make a recetn comment that was misleading and only addd to the confusion, for which I apologise. Prof. Nick Tyler, the author of the recnet article, is indeed the head of the UCL department in question. My amendments to the article in March were the result of reading the article. This gave me the impression (perhaps falsely) that the author was saying that previous statements about the location were wrong, but perhaps in light of our recent discussion, he was merely sayting that it was imprecise. In any event, I believe that the present text of the article conforms with what Prof. Tyler wrote. He made a well argued case, in a peer-reviewed journal. I hope this may be the end of the matter, except that I must apologise for adding to the confusion in my recnet comments. Peterkingiron 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

All is forgiven. We are all agreed that the article is good as it currently stands. This is the best map that I can find of that area at that time:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/projects/euston_grove/euston_grove_wallis.htm Euston Square is bounded on the West side by Gordon street, the East side by Upper Woburn Place, the North side by Drummond Street, and the South side by Endsleigh Place (the last street is not named on any of the maps). Somewhat tantalisingly, it is just possible to make out the word "Carmar" on the second map from the top, along the bottom edge. The street seems extremely wide there, and the whole of that area is now under UCL. It is roughly a continuation of Mallet street, further north (Malet Place/ Foster Court) , roughly where the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archeology now stands. As for the Chadwick Building, it is precisely where the plaque is currently placed, by the main gate: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/images/map_mainsiteb&w.jpg# I found only one mention of Carmarthen Square, in this Old Bailey report of 1821: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_sessions/T18211024.html Ogg 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The article makes clear that Carmarthen Square had (at most) a very brief existence, its site being taken by the University. I therefore think it best not to refer to it. Peterkingiron 11:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your comments. I have corrected the slight mistake re "East" side and "West" side (with reference to Gordon Street and Upper Woburn Place) also note what appears to be an "n" under "Carmar" (on the map) which I assume is the last letter in "then". 26 June 2007 Here is Cruchley's plan of area in 1827:

http://archivemaps.com/mapco/cruchley/cruch02.htm (note Caerm. Squ.r, also note how a "Grafton" is often found near a "Euston", this is because the Earl of Euston is/was the heir to the Duke of Grafton and so the buildings in the Euston Place block or square may have been the Euston's London residence) 1 July 2007 Here is Bowle's Plan of area in 1806: http://www.oldlondonmaps.com/Bowlespages/bowles02a.html 5 July 2007.

The Chadwick Building is directly opposite University Street. On the the 1827 map the street is shown as Carmarthen Street. 14 February 2008. For aerial photo views of the area go to http://maps.live.com and search: Gower Street London. 15 February 2008.

Interesting new bit of research: [1] Frankie Roberto (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Note - The location was reassessed in a lecture at the Early Railways 4 Conference in mid-June 2008, which placed the location on the south side of Euston Road, slightly north of the lcoation indicated. The article will need to be amended when the confernece proceedings are publihsed. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just thought I'd mention this: The illustration attached to the section on Catch Me Who Can has recently been discovered to be an early 20th century fake, according to The Railway Magazine, citing sources at, I think, the British National Museum. Just wondering if people think this should therefore be removed, as it likely bears no visual similarity to the actual locomotive, or whether it should be left for purely illustrative purpose. Richard

"Fake" may be too strong. "Artist's impression" would probably be nearer the mark. The whole subject was (as I mentioned above) dealt with authoritatively at the Early Railways 4 conference last summer. The Conference proceedings will be published as Early Railways 4 in due course. This will constitute a reliable source on the subject. I would suggest we leave amending the article until the volume is published. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pen-y-darren Locomotive's winnings

It might be worth mentioning in some fashion that the 500 guineas won in the wager would be worth in 'today's' terms around £35,000 (an online conversion calculator gave a 2006 figure of £34,030-odd). While direct comparisons are rendered problematical by changes in society - much we now buy didn't exixt then - the sum was far from trivial, and weakens the frequent argument that the Middleton locomotive was the first to be "commercially successful."195.92.67.74 (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an equivalence amount seems useful. However, I don't think this in any way changes whether the Middleton locomotive can be considered the first commercially successful locomotive or not. A prize of this sort is not what is meant by "commercially successful" - that phrase, I believe, means that the locomotive is being used successfully for revenue generation over a substantial period of time. The Penydarren locomotive clearly never did this, while Salamander did. Gwernol 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

TRanslating historic sums of money into modern ones is fraught with difficulty, because different commodities have suffered quite different inflation rates. The sum was a substantial one. If your comparator was a labourer's weekly wage, you might get a much higher figure. If you work on UK house prices, the figure even from the end of WWII, would be several tiems higher! The Penydarren loco was certainly mechanically effective, but the cast iron rails on which it ran were not up to the task and the engine was converted to a static use. Those at the Middleton Colliery and on Tyneside were part of profitable transport systems that continued to function while the colliery they served continued to work. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

I changed it to British. He was Cornish but this is not his nationality, and this would actually mean little to a global readership. Let's not damage an article about such an important man by reverting to confusing information. Note also that according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a well recognised reference for Wikipeida, he was English! (ref. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073323/Richard-Trevithick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.151 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please could people stop using this page as a forum to promote their separatist agenda. Whatever you may believe, or wish to happen, Cornwall is part of the United Kingdom. The article should include where he was born but it is misleading, especially to global readers, to keep reverting British to Cornish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.105.168 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The style manual is perfectly plain: ...Nationality...In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.) No mention of counties. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the opening paragrpah to read "Cornish" since there are numerous sources that describe him as such: I used three examples from 1884, 1960 and 1986 the latter being to Grolier's Academic American Encyclopedia. He is widely recognized as specifically Cornish and I don't think its confusing, or not understandable to those outside the UK. Nor do I think its particularly pushing a Cornish nationalist agenda to describe him in this way: I am not a Cornish nationalist, I don't believe that Cornwall is a separate nation, but I do believe that many reliable sources described Trevithick as Cornish. Gwernol 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In which of those cites does it note that Trevithick referred to himself as Cornish, as opposed to English? See WP:UKNATIONALS ... richi (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a misreading of WP:UKNATIONALS. It says: "When looking for available evidence (perhaps through biographies, encyclopedias and news articles), bear in mind that there is often no consensus across the UK, and many conflicting examples can exist for any one person. Often, however, a clear national preference can arise (e.g., Sean Connery is widely referred to as a Scottish actor)." In other words its not how the subject refers to themselves, but what sources say about the subject. Indeed it seems very unlikely that Trevithick was asked this question and that we have his answer recorded, so we can't rely on what he may have referred to himself as. We do, however have a lot of references to what other reliable sources describe him as. As far as I can see the majority refer to him as Cornish, not English, so that's what the article should reflect. As always, go with WP:V as the primary guiding policy. Gwernol 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of WP:UKNATIONALS: thanks for pointing it out, it was an interesting read. Basically, it's saying "try to get a consensus" but at the moment this still seems some way off! I couldn't help but notice the paragraph"The county of Cornwall is the South-western peninsula-tip of England. The Cornish language and culture has undergone a renaissance in recent years. It is spoken by 3,500 people" which immediately put me in mind of 86.149.105.168's remark above about editors promot[ing] their separatist agenda. (I need to point out here that I completely accept that this isn't Gwernol's motive, as he/she declares above.) My main point is in fact the same as his/hers: the reflection of reliable sources. As regards the works cited in the article, only the Grolier seems significant: a book entitled Cornish Worthies or The Cornish Giant may (quite appropriately for their particular market) not match up to WP's standards of impartial sourcing when it comes to Trevithick's national origin. The internationally accepted Encyclopædia Britannica, in contrast, starts: English mechanical engineer and inventor. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Changing_an_exisiting_UK_nationality is clear that there should be consensus before changing an article subject's nationality. I'm not clear that there is such a consensus. FWIW, my personal opinion is that "Cornish" is not a nationality—unlike, say, Welsh ;-) ... richi (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (updated 20:02)

This is what it says about changing a nationality:
Changing an exisiting UK nationality

It cannot be called "wrong" to change an existing nationality (e.g., Welsh to British, or British to Irish) provided a sufficient connection exists.
Before making a change:
Consider why the existing nationality was chosen.
Examine the article for details that support the existing label.
Look for existing consensus on the discussion page, and in any archives that may be present.
Conduct research to be certain your choice is preferable (you can consult the guide above).
Sometimes no single "correct" choice exists. Is your change actually for the better? An editor may query you, or revert your choice – so be prepared to explain your decision.
Above all, be civil, assume good faith and respect other people's points of view. It is of course OK to "be bold" and apply your choice, but remember that strong feelings surround UK identity, and firm disagreement may arise!
Do NOT enforce uniformity
It is not possible to create a uniforming guideline, when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels.
Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities – is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained.
Do NOT "edit war"!
Be aware that "edit warring" with other editors by repeatedly changing the text of an article to suit your views is against Wikipedia policy, and may lead to action being taken against you by Wikipedia administrators.

If that helps at all. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest the following opening text: "Richard Trevithick (born April 13, 1771; died April 22, 1833) was an inventor, mining engineer and builder of the first working railway steam locomotive." ... leaving the details of his background to the "Childhood and early life" and "Trevithick's final project" sections? 25 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.85.252 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"my personal opinion is that "Cornish" is not a nationality" - Cornish is an officially recognised government ethnic census code - see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes - 01 British, 02 Irish, 03 English, 04 Scottish, 05 Welsh, 06 Cornish, and recognised by Cornish people and many others.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.93.254 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, I think you just proved my point. An ethnicity, not a nationality. If you want to argue that the article should state the subject's ethnicity in the lede, you'll need one or more primary references that show he described himself as belonging to that ethnicity. If, however, you're arguing that this biographical article should, like practically all others such articles, state his nationality in the lede, the convention is that you should stick with the original—in this case, "English"—unless you have good reason to change it Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Changing_an_exisiting_UK_nationality should guide you in presenting those reasons in the talk page ... richi (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

can I suggest that everybody reads the bit above about edit-warring, and then also read WP:LAME please? DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the introduction should give his nationality. Virtually every other biograph article in Wikipedia notes a person's nationality. The issue would be what nationality to describe RT. For this conisder the following references:

• http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073323/Richard-Trevithick#55430.hook
• http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10248452
• http://www.britainexpress.com/History/bio/trevithick.htm
• http://www.todayinsci.com/4/4_13.htm
• http://gm.ca/inm/gmcanada/english/about/OverviewHist/hist_auto_highlights.html
• http://www.learningcalendar.com/this_day_in_history/days_template.cfm?history_id=16912

Personally I think the suggestion for "Cornish" as it's an ethnic group on the recent census would set a dangerous precedent. I am not suggesting this was the above writer's intention but I fear this could open a nasty can of worms in respect to racist arguments on other articles.

Also let's not forget the wider readership of Wikipedia. Many will not be from the UK. Many will not know anything about its regional identities. Describing someone as Cornish will not mean anything to much of the World, but they will understand English (or British .... I'm not fussed about either.) Inclusion of his birth place later in the article would give more information about his exact origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.148 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would go with either Cornish or British, but no way English. I don't think the "people from around the world won't understand Cornish" argument holds water - Wikipedia has this things called "wikilinks" which people can click on... DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I agree with your argument regarding wikilinks. As much as possible an article should be useful and make sense on its own. Wikilinks should enhance qn article by allowing further information to be easily accessable. It should not necessary to follow them for understanding.

About English / British / Cornish: (1) whatever people's wishes Cornwall is part of England, and therefore if born in the county (with usual legal rights) makes someone English. Someone can be Cornish AND English, just as someone else can be a Yorkshireman AND English. (2) The six citations above describe RT as English. All are legimate references.

I do not understand why you suggest "people from around the world won't understand Cornish" holds water. Consider that (1) even in the UK the call for sepration of Cornwall from England is very small beans. Many are not aware of it. (2) Plenty / most of the world will not be able to locate Cornwall on a map, or even care. A lot more will be able to locate England / Britain, and have some understanding or knowledge of it. and (3) when writing for a encyclopedia surely the readership should be considered? And this includes what would mean something to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.148 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I have seen a lot of POV pushing from IP addresses trying to remove any suggestion of Cornish cultural or historical difference from Wikipedia, I do have a problem when edit warring breaks out driven at least in part by an IP editor. British will do after all, noone has "English" as a nationality on a passport. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd happily vote for British, which should be acceptable to all but the most rabid Cornish nationists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.148 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

British will also upset some of the more rabid English nationalist who like to edit war on Cornish articles from time to time. I've seen it before. DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's all I hope I will say - I've seen this sort of question far too often for it to be good for me. The guideline about nationality does point out that nationalities within the UK are hard to define, cannot and should not be standardized, and to be honest I do think that anyone describing Trevithick as English would be laughed out of at least 4 counties. DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In the recent Census and as recommended by Cornwall Council I recorded my nationality and ethnicity as CORNISH. There is NO English nationality and I personally regard myself as Cornish, of the British Isles and European. Wiki is haunted by Anglo supremacists who feel the need to keep Britain united. Time are changing as the very public recommendations of Cornwall Council show. CornubianKernow (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nationality problem

The above threads have become somewhat confused, so I suggest further discussion takes place in a fresh thread. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.

Trevithick was born in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and when he died that realm had become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I would suggest that British would be an acceptable description of his nationality, avoiding the problems associated with either Cornish or English. DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking, Duncan. For the record (again) I have no issue with whether we describe Trevithick is English or British, but I do object to anon IP users with no editing history ignoring WP:UKNATIONALS, despite reminder comments embedded in the article. Sure, it's not "policy", but it is good sense. Unless/until we have consensus that the nationality should be changed, we should stick to the original wording (English) ... richi (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But UKNationals doesn't actually say that, as far as I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which isn't to say that I'm not in favour of getting a consensus! DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my (imperfect) summary of Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Changing_an_exisiting_UK_nationality. Put simply: don't change it without consensus. I changed the comment to simply point here ... richi (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, it's been "traditional" to take into consideration how the subject of a biographical article described his own nationality. Do we have cites for RT calling himself English, British, or Cornish? ... richi (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a very good question! I don't have anything to hand, ODNB does say he was known in Cornwall and elsewhere as the Cornish Giant, but I shall see what I can find - and would be very glad if any other interested editor could also do a bit of digging! DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have compiled a very rough survey of usage found on the internet, from encyclopædias, museums, newspapers, libraries etc at User:DuncanHill/Trevithick. DuncanHill (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear -- the UK WP tradition is to go with the description of nationality that the subject used, not that secondary sources ascribed to him. In other words, can anyone find a cite where he describes himself as "British" (for example) ... richi (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The UKNATIONALS actually does suggest looking at how a subject is widely referred to, as well as looking for evidence of the subjects own usage. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Guide_to_finding_UK_nationality. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for prolonging this discussion, but:

• CORNISH and BRITISH cannot be disputed; ENGLISH can (see, for example, Constitutional Status of Cornwall).
• My preference would be for Cornish, however:
• If anyone does not understand 'Cornish', surely there can be a link to Cornwall that will tell them what/where it is in a second.
• Trevithick, as far as I know, is generally regarded as a Cornish figure, and is important in Cornish history and culture.

Cornishman5040 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, citations please, especially from verifiable, reliable sources that show he viewed himself as "Cornish" ... richi (rant) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Any citations suggesting he referred to himself as anything else? UKNATIONALS does NOT insist on finding the subject's own usage. DuncanHill (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't say it did. Where does "insist" come from? Anyway, it does say, "Look specifically for evidence that the person has a preferred nationality", which amounts to the same thing and is consistent how I've often seen these sort of disputes resolved ... richi (hello) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but Trevithick was an engineer who died in the 1830s. I might be wrong, but I expect it would be quite a tough job finding any sources that testify that he considered himself Cornish, English, British or Martian! Cornishman5040 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. WP:V and WP:RS are non-negotiable ... richi (hello) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The issue, however, is that (1) as DuncanHill pointed out, "UKNATIONALS does NOT insist on finding the subject's own usage" and (2) (the point I’ve just made) there is probably no evidence that exists showing the subject’s own usage- but please correct me if I’m wrong about the chances of that. (And anyway, as UKNATIONALS says, the subject might be wrong about considering themselves to be a certain nationality.) Therefore some other means has to be used to find his 'correct' nationality. Cornishman5040 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you can talk about process, or you can help build consensus. One way you can do that is to find verifiable, reliable refs, consistent with WP:UKNATIONALS, which support a change to the original editor's intent. As I've said before, I have no opinion ... richi (hello) 00:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I started to do this on my user page as linked above - but someone objected on the grounds that they wanted the subject's own usage, not usage by libraries, museums, encyclopædias etc. I just re-read Bronowski's "Ascent of Man", Bronowski describes Trevithick as Cornish too. I don't see any consensus for "English", and I don't see any prooof that Trevithick himself used "English", what I do see is a range of usage tending towards "Cornish" or "British" and away from English. DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm coming to that conclusion too. I also agree that it's unlikely that we'll find evidence of what he called himself, more's the pity. Do you think we might achieve consensus with "British (Cornish-born)" or something like that? ... richi (hello) 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. I suppose British is a reasonable compromise. I don't think there'll ever be a consensus for English and some people don't seem to think Cornish is appropiate for some reason. Cornishman5040 (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I think this is a pretty good solution (British in main text and infobox saying British and Cornish) Cornishman5040 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GBP2coinTrevithick.jpg

The image Image:GBP2coinTrevithick.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it FairuseBot is a tad broken, seeing as the big red ! sighn did not appear. Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I added a fairuse thingy to the image, but forgot to come back here and say so! DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent controversial edits

This discussion is copied from Talk:Steam engine#Richard Trevithick edits

An anon editor has applied this new text to the Richard Trevithick article. There are some bold claims, all without references of course, but lack of refs is not usually grounds for deletion, at least, not immediately.

Apart from the typos/punctuation, anyone care to comment? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

At least some of it (about failure to understand things) is balls. Globbet (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Only some? I'll wait for the refs before accepting this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But much of the article is unreferenced, although most is probably uncontroversial.

What best to do? Mark the new text with 'fact' tags? Delete it as unref'd? Move it to talk page? Leave it as is? (These are slightly rhetorical, as I'm on Wikibreak for two+ weeks from tonight and won't be in a position to follow them up.) -- EdJogg (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I also wondered whether to revert most of it, but was not sure enough of my ground. Perhaps it should be placed on the talk page until referenced. It sounds like WP:OR to me! Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am copying the discussion so far to Talk:Richard Trevithick. Please continue this discussion there, chaps. Globbet (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with copying the mods here and then reverting. I suggest comments to the effect that it is controversial, added by an IP user to boot, and a request for refs. Globbet (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to revise my view expressed above. The addition appears to be wrong, in that it has been added in the wrong place chronologically. There is an article Arthur Woolf, which deals with the subject of the addition, and also needs attention. That article cited what was a web-linked article (link now broken) from Eindhoven University, probably from the same authors (but misspelt), as an article just published: Alessandro Nuvolari and Bart Verspagen, 'Technical Choice, innovation, and British steam engineering, 1800-1850' Economic History Review 62(3), 685-710. This is an important explanation of why engine development was quite different in Cornwall that period from the textile districts, such as Lancashire. It cites another article by the same authors, 'Lean's Engine Reporter and the development of the Cornish engine: a reappraisal' Trans. Newcomen Soc. 77 (2007), 167-89. I am beyond my area of expertise, but hope that one or other of you can get to grips with this, and update, this article, Arthur Woolf and History of the steam engine in the light of these articles. Some one commented that the 19th century history in the latter was sadly deficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Some one commented..." -- that would be me then!

EdJogg (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite easily found a similar paper by Nuvolari: Collective Invention during the British Industrial Revolution: The Case of the Cornish Pumping Engine. Its subject is socio-economic rather than technical, but it seems that Lean's Engine Reporter would be a very valuable reference (and quite likely notable). Globbet (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, someone else seems to have thought so, too. Globbet (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lean's Engine Reporter was created over 3 years ago, but remained an orphan until today (it is still technically an orphan, as it is only linked from 2 pages.) Would be good to incorporate this more into other articles. EdJogg (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

These edits are still bugging me. On this page they are peppered with {{fact}} tags (OK, so I added most of them!) and on many pages that would be enough to have them removed. On the Arthur Woolf page, Trevithick is called 'mercurial and wayward', and although there are references, they are neither plentiful nor on-line, nor applied specifically to this claim.

For a living person, such unsubstantiated claims to his (lack of) ability would be removed on sight and I tend to take the same approach with someone no longer living. Trevithick has a long-standing reputation, and these claims put a serious dent in it. I'm prepared to have my view of him challenged by new information, but only if it can be properly substantiated.

How long do we leave this unreferenced text in place?

EdJogg (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The tags have been there long enough and no references have been forthcoming, so I suggest it goes now. Globbet (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Globbet (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cornish ethnicity

To those of you who seem to think that it is acceptable to remove any mention of Cornish ethnicity (cultural identity) from these articles, why is it I don't see you removing UNREFERENCED Welsh, Scottish and Irish ethnicity statements from other info boxes? Lets see you remove the Scottish references for James Watt, and change Scottish to British. Well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.211.98 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Trevithick is undoubtedly Cornish. I don't see anyone disputing that, or "removing any mention of" his Cornish identity from the article. The problem is with asserting, without any qualification, in an infobox, that his "ethnicity" is Cornish, definitively and exclusively; or indeed with asserting any such ethnicity, including "British", were anyone to make that claim. This is a rather large assumption, and a fairly egregious piece of original research. And what might or might not be in the James Watt article - or on any other page - is irrelevant of course, as is whether anyone is planning to make equivalent changes on those pages or not. --Nickhh (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My first thought on seeing the removal was, 'yes, correct action'. If Trevithick had been born in Berkshire, no one in their right mind would have claimed that as his 'ethnicity'. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"And what might or might not be in the James Watt article - or on any other page - is irrelevant of course, as is whether anyone is planning to make equivalent changes on those pages or not." - If you say so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.211.98 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• This was considered at length in the sections on "Nationality" above. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, people actually spend time discussing this stuff, rather than just saying "this kind of thing is irredeemably silly, and no serious person would start randomly assigning speculative "ethnicities" to historical figures"? Please don't finally kill off my naive belief that Wikipedia is something more than a platform for fringe political and nationalist advocacy. --Nickhh (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Southwesterner, 13 April 2011

It is absolutely absurd that this article specifies at the start "Richard Trevithick (13 April 1771 – 22 April 1833) was an English[1] inventor and mining engineer." and the reference [1] goes to a biography written by his son "Francis Trevithick, Life of Richard Trevithick,1872." which refers to him as a Cornishman throughout.

Throughout the quoted biography countless references and an extremely clear distinction are made between Cornish engineers and English engineers, in the field of mining technology. Richard Trevithick falls clearly into the former camp. It is available online here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RTTOd1zMLrIC and you can check yourself by doing a search for "Cornish" and "English" through the book.

Locking this article and leaving it so that it shows Richard Trevithick as an Englishman is a traversty, and on this important day when the article will be reached by millions due to the Google "doodle" it is particularly unfortunate. It should be immediately corrected and locked as the correct version. It has taken decades to achieve the proper historical recognition for Trevithick that he deserves, due to the false but formerly ubiquitous teaching that Stephenson invented the steam locomotive - and now this. Cornishmen all over the world would turn in their graves if they heard this great Cornishman and mining icon is being falsely labelled as an "English engineer".

Kind Regards, Southwesterner. Southwesterner (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This man is Cornish and should be described as such. This has been changed again to 'from the English county of Cornwall'. On today of all days when millions of people will see this article. This is racist and outrageous to have changed this today! Why don't you go an delete the article on 'Cornish People' while you're there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please can we remove the "English county" reference in the first sentence. Cornwall is a nation in its own right, why can't the English state just recognise that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.158.39 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Because Cornwall is an English county! The no such thing as the english state which ceased to exist in 1707! Everyone from the the island of Great Britain is British! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.133.165 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) You've stated that Cornwall is an English county, and then stated that the English state doesn't exist anymore. This doesn't make any sense. The Cornish state doesn't exist anymore, but that doesn't mean people from Cornwall arn't Cornish. You clearly have no understanding of this matter - try a forum if you want to regurgitate the UK government’s version of celtic history - this is an encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the referenced wording in the lead paragraph. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Google Doodle

This is accounting for the increased traffic today (celebrating Trevithick's 240th birthday). I suspect we cannot add the graphic itself, as it is bound to be copyrighted, but I have archived the page so we can mention it and allow visitors to view it in the future. This archiving service captures the whole page, including the graphic, so we won't lose it. (Incidentally, it is REALLY easy -- takes less time to archive a webpage than it does to complete the cite template! Thoroughly recommended to prevent link-rot.)

see: http://www.webcitation.org/5xulxP4ej

Presumably selection for a Google doodle counts as a recognition of notability? (although earlier in the week Google did celebrate the 117th anniversary of the first ice cream sundae...)

EdJogg (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Old Google logos appear at http://www.google.com/logos. Incidentally, if you try to work out the gearing of this loco, you'll find it can't go anywhere... —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, will remember to look there again. (Incidentally, it was the 119th anniversary of the ice cream sundae... :o) )

I had noticed the gearing issue, but I pressed 'save' before I realised I had commented on it! -- EdJogg (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Due to edit warring, I've protected this page for 24 hours. Please resolve your differences on this talk page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... The current version states: "Trevithick...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall" This clearly meets a fair minded compromise IMHO. It omits any mention of Trevithick being English and clearly states his origin is Cornish with in-line links to the Cornish People Wiki page. This SHOULD satisfy any fair minded Cornish separatist because "British" Trevithick unquestionably was, by virtue of his birth and residence with the British Islands. Simply wanting to remove the word "British" from the sentence for purely separatist political reasons is entirely puerile and goes against the grain of our attempts to make Wikipedia a resource for unbiased information, rather than a place to air political views... I put it forward for debate that the current "Trevithick ...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall" remains as it is. It is fair and informative, without mentioning England for those who feel that Cornwall should not be part of England. Comments? --M R G WIKI999 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that I did not lock the article at any "right" version - personally I couldn't care whether he was Cornish, English or Swedish. I just wanted to stop things getting out of hand before anyone was blocked for WP:3RR. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you locked it at a version which misrepresents a reference. DuncanHill (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the word Cornish as supported by the reference in the lead, or remove the reference as it is dishonest to misuse a ref in this way. Pleas also restore the word england to the infobox as this represents the compromise wording adopted by WP:Cornwall. Please would everyone read the previous debats on this talk page too. DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa. That was my error for not moving the ref to the end of the sentence on my last edit. A simple mistake, and one that is easily rectified at some later point. It does not however address the main issue regarding having a proper joined-up debate on why "Trevithick...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall" is unacceptable (if indeed it is not.--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall" seems a fair compromise. TBH There seems to be a lot of agenda driven edits on Wikipedia in general from people like the Cornish separatists here. Is Wikipedia a soapbox or a place of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.27.157 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Allegedly it's a place of information. Even if Cornwall succedes from the UK in the future (however unlikely that scenario is), it won't alter history. Cornwall was part of England during Trevithick's time, and thus part of the geographical British Isles (as it still is, and always will be). Therefore, "British" is a good word to use. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The usual SP IP's popping up - including I am sure at least one indeffed editor. There do seem to be a lot of agenda driven edits from people who object to the use of the word Cornish to describe someone from Cornwall. Normal English language usage means nothing to these people, neither does any consideration of what sources say. We have debated to death the whole English/British/Cornish issue on this page previously, it's a shame that this latest spate of idiocy was triggered by someone imposing the usage of "English" here. Ireland was is and always will be part of the British Isles but only a complete lunatic would try to use that to justify calling an Irishman British! DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

are you suggesting say Ian Paisley isn't British? Bringing in ireland in any case only complicates matters because strickly speaking Trevithick was born as a subject of the Kingdom of Great Britain and died a subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.©Geni 23:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

He is British, but not from Britain - he's not Irish, but he is from Ireland. The thing with Trevithick being Cornish is it's verifiable, it's objectively true, and it actually avoids saying anything about the troubled area of citizenship. Cornish is just the word that the English language uses for people from Cornwall. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur that it is objectively true Richard Trevithick is Cornish. Furthermore using the current reference "Francis Trevithick, Life of Richard Trevithick,1872." to justify anything other than calling him Cornish is blatant misuse of referencing, and anyone that reads that reference can see that. I can't understand this fear of using the word "Cornish". It's a certifiably widespread term for describing people from Cornwall - which Trevithick and other Cornish mining engineers clearly identify with. There is an article to explain who and what the Cornish peoples are on wikipedia - and Richard Trevithick is foremost among them. He has an explicitely Cornish language surname, he was born in Cornwall to a mining family - if he is not Cornish, then no one is. And that would contradict the countless other Cornish people on wikipedia who just happen not to be famous enough to have been reached by those who wish evidently wish nothing else than to surpress the Cornish identity. Southwesterner (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is objectively true that Neville Chamberlain was from Birmingham, but you would not start his Wiki-page off with the sentence, "Neville Chamberlain was a Brummie politician." Unless of course you were not being objective for whatever reason. The REALLY objective opener would read, "Neville Chamberlain was a British politician from Birmingham." Of course you could also say, "Neville Chamberlain was an English politician from Birmingham" unless some people for "subjective" reasons objected to the use of the term "English." Now, I'm full prepared to admit that some Cornish readers object to the term English being used, which is why on my last edit I did not include it, and instead used the neutral, "Trevithick...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall." It is true that the reference should be moved to the end of the sentence (which was an accidental omission on my part) but the current "Trevithick...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall" sentence meets the previous consensus by ommiting "English" and Including both "British" and "Cornwall"... And is BOTH objjective AND more informative--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the notion that saying "Neville Chamberlain was a Brummie politician" is the same as saying "Richard Trevithick is a Cornish engineer". The difference is that the Cornish people are an ethnic group with a distinct identity, rather than a colloquial term for the inhabitants of a city or place. More importantly though, still no one has addressed the matter of the misuse of the reference which clearly shows a distinction between English engineers and Cornish engineers, and Trevithick to be in the latter group. Using it as a justification for calling him a "British" or "English" engineer is not appropriate. If you want to ignore the reference of a biography from his son which couldn't possibly be a more authoritative tool in determining the matter of Trevithick's ethnicity, then so be it - but please do not continue to misuse this reference. Southwesterner (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (edited 13:17)

On the contrary, I've addressed it several times here, including in my opening statement, but seeing as you are having difficulty, I will repeat it here in bold: It was a simple and accidental error during my last edit (which I have openly admitted culpability for) and is one that can and will be corrected at some later point The reference placement simply isn't worth you snapping your quim strings over and in so doing you are showing that you are looking at this without rational objectivity. As to the point about Cornish being an ethnicity... If he were black, would it be informative enough for the opening line to simply say Trevithick was a black inventor and mining engineer, without giving a mention to his nationality? Of course it wouldn't and you know it. Stating that he was British and Cornish covers BOTH his nationality AND his ethnicity (as you describe it). Also, for your information, at the time of Trevithick's birth, the term "British" was widely used to describe "non-English" people of the British Isles (non-English in this instance referring to non-English speaking welsh, Irish, Cornish, Scottish and Cumbrian people). I propose that we move the reference to the end of the sentence and leave the sentence reading as is, as omitting his nationality (he was British whether or not you accept this historical fact is academic) is simply not factual or acceptable because some Cornish nationalist wants to re-write history .--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

(ec)We must not lose sight of the fact that this is an international encyclopedia. It is unlikely that we would describe someone as a "Texan engineer", the correct usage would be "an engineer from Texas, US", or possibly "an American engineer from Texas" (or however you wanted to describe America!) Would someone from Peru (eg) understand that Cornish meant someone from Cornwall, and that Cornwall was part of the British Isles, part of the UK and not, however much some people might desire it, a separate nation state? Cornwall/Cornish requires qualification for international readers.

I am quite happy (in this case) for 'British' to be used rather than 'English', if it effects a compromise here -- as suggested by MRG (with the ref relocated appropriately). More generally though, I do get miffed when our islands' nationalities are divided into four: Scottish, Welsh, Irish and British -- that, to me, is unreasonable. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully concur Ed. Also, as an additional bit of info, Cornish people who object to the Term "British" should read this Wiki page on the term "Britons" and "British" to assuage their angst at the term--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that "The British" are citizens of the United Kingdom, and Richard Trevithick was unquestionably that. However, his identity is that of a Cornishman, and the reference confirms he is a Cornish engineer. Seeing as there is already a Nationality field in the information box, I question why it is advantageous to put his citizenship. I could also repeat the point made earlier that no one would dream of calling James Watt "a British Scottish inventor". I think the real problem is the dubious status of Cornwall as a national identity and people objecting to it being used in this context. I quote David Cameron in saying "I think Cornish national identity is very powerful". But lets not get bogged down in the merits. I am not a nationalist. At the very least it would be appropriate to encompass all of his citizenship, ethnicity and nationality, to call him "a British Cornish[1] inventor and mining engineer" retaining the reference which asserts his Cornish identity. Anything less is frankly an insult to the Cornish people, and one of their greatest sons, Richard Trevithick.Southwesterner (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried British Cornish in an earlier edit, but some clown undid it, editing out the "British" saying something like it was superfluous. I also agree that calling James Watt "a British Scottish inventor" would be silly (although technically accurate) as Scotland is a country in it's own right, albeit one within the constitutional framework of the UK. Cornwall however is not a country (I'm not saying it should or should not be, I'm just saying it isn't) it is an English county. I'm also very aware that some people object very strongly to that fact, which is why I have NEVER edited the page to name this Cornishman as English. However, we must face facts that Cornwall is not a country (either currently or at the time of Trevithick) and so his nationality is unquestionably and indisputably British. I have No problem calling him British Cornish or (using better grammar) British from Cornwall (as it currently is) but to simply call him Cornish is not informative enough, not accurate enough and not in-keeping enough with the Wikipedia aim of making each page easily understood internationally (as indicated by Ed, above).--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there that "Cornish" is not understood internationally? And if it isn't, is Comorian? Is Burkinabé? Should they all just be called African? Ignorance should not be a reason for ambiguity, especially in an encyclopedia. There is such a thing as a Wikilink. --Kernoweger (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidence? You mean other than it is a minor provincial region with an entire population less than most large towns? That aside... If your argument is followed to it's logical conclusion, it would be; if he was from Carlisle it would be good practice to describe his nationality as Cumbrian. Or if he was from Chester he should be listed as Chesherian. You are comparing apples with oranges as you are trying to inject Cornish statehood by implication into your argument by comparing a small regional county with internationally recognised states. (We've already discussed the ethnicity a bit further up - go read it in case you were about to bang that particular drum again). Furthermore, you are putting forward (with your assertion of comparison and knowledge) that it is proper for Wikipedia to be used to promote Cornish statehood by propagation of the false impression (dressed up as knowledge) that Cornwall is a state in its own right rather than a region or county within one. Your argument is utterly bogus and transparently political, and should be rejected out of hand for being such. It is indisputable FACT that Trevithick was a Briton from Cornwall, describing him as anything else is purely and simply politically motivated vandalism of the article--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say your answer is either based on ignorance, prejudice or both. You are completely ignoring Cornish ethnicity and nationality. You show a limited, if not non-existent, understanding of nationalism. That there is a Cornish ethnicity and nationality does not mean there is a Cornish state, any more than it means there is a Basque state, a Uyghur state or a Bantu state. Your illogical analysis of my argument equates a long-standing and internationally-recognised Cornish identity with county identities of other English counties. Furthermore you equate international knowledge of Cornwall with international knowledge of the Cornish people, a misleading conclusion. Please read the articles Cornish people and Cornish diaspora before you subject us to your ignorance again. Cornish ethnicity is FACT, not opinion. --Kernoweger (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no need to read them. Wikipedia is not here to present nationalism, Cornish or English (of which I am neither, being a German national living and working in the North of England). My argument stands, so I shall repeat it.... It is indisputable FACT that Trevithick was a Briton from Cornwall, describing him as anything else is purely and simply politically motivated vandalism of the article. It is safe to say then, that it is accurate, concise and fair to have the article read as it does: "Trevithick...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall."" (changing the ref to the end, though). It doesn't mention the English, it just states the facts in an unbiased un-nationalistic way--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to read them since Germany does not have an equivalent complex ethnic and national makeup. Trevithick being Cornish is no less fact than him being British, or European. --Kernoweger (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

[ec] Well, now I'm going to surprise MRG as I have changed my mind!

I followed Kernoweger's suggestion of looking at the articles Cornish people and Cornish diaspora (well, the ledes thereof, at least) and I would say that the term 'Cornish' probably is as likely to be known and understood internationally as the terms 'Scottish' or 'Welsh'. Hence describing Trevithick as a ...Cornish inventor and mining engineer is perfectly acceptable, without suggesting any kind of nationalism on the part of Cornish separatists, particularly if we keep the nationality field as British in the infobox -- AND it reads much better too. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Germany does not have an equivalent complex ethnic and national makeup". Err Prussia? Württemberg?©Geni 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

Kernoweger you prove my point entirely... If there were an article about me and it were to use your format it would say "WIKI1999 is an NRW engineer" or more broadly "WIKI1999 is a Westphalian engineer." Now, NRW or Westphalia, despite being a historic district of Germany, like Cornwall is a district of Britain, has a population nearly 40% the size of the entire country of England (unlike Cornwall's 500 thousand). It is as ethically diverse from (say) Prussian Germans or Bavarian Germans as Cornwall is from the rest of Britain, yet were My Wiki page to be written in your format, virtually nobody would know what Nationality I was. I suggest you (and Ed) look up the German diaspora which dwarfs the Cornish one by several orders of magnitude, yet your ignorance of German ethnicity and regionalism, Kernoweger, is still not surprising. My (hypothetical) page should of course read: "Wiki1999 is a German engineer from Westphalia." and this page should of course read: "Trevithick ...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall." I can tell you as a matter of FACT that Cornwall and Cornish is pretty much unheard off in the European mind. Having worked in the US too (which is ethnically German in at least as much an extent as it is English) if you were to say either Westphalia or Cornish, you would draw blank looks from all but a tiny minority. Also Ed, I would suggest you go and look back at those pages and the edits made and the editors, and you will see a certain level of continuity from a Cornish nationalist POV... and I'm sure you'd agree, Wikipedia should not be agenda driven.--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, well now I'm going to climb back onto the fence...

I think I understand the issues involved now. Remember this all started because an edit had described him as an English engineer. We're all agreed that that is wrong. We also agree that he was born in Cornwall; therefore it is perfectly acceptable to call him 'Cornish'. The problem is inferring that he is ethnically different (Cornish), rather than simply 'from Cornwall', unless the references actually prove that: therefore, if used, 'Cornish' should link to the article 'Cornwall', with a suitable inline comment (ie [[Cornwall|Cornish]]<!-- Do not change link to [[Cornish people]] since this implies more than is covered by the reference.-->). Consequently it may be simpler to say "...British inventor...from Cornwall.", since that avoids any ethnic implications.

Hopefully the acceptable consensus can be agreed upon as this argument is wasting valuable editing time and is not improving the encyclopedia. (I had vowed to avoid getting dragged into arguments like this, and my productivity had improved as a result!) -- EdJogg (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Ed. I too think it would be wrong to class him as English as it wound undoubtedly upset Cornish nationalists. I concur with your last post. To other interested parties, then: I would ask if we have consensus... NOT calling him English, but describing him either as Cornish British (or vice versa) or as British from Cornwall with relevant referencing put in the correct place? --M R G WIKI999 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Come back when there's consensus. Even better, find something better to do with your time than bicker over which adjective to use to describe someone's birthright. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time Chris, I thought it was improper to use the request template then too, but there you go, who was I to say as much at the time... Anyway, as the man says "consensus" do we have it?????? because I'm as sick of the bickering as others.--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Richard Trevithick (13 April 1771 – 22 April 1833) was a British Cornish inventor and mining engineer."--Southwesterner (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Sorry, but compromises between random WP editors do not decent content make. Nor are they relevant to anything. "British Cornish" is a designation unheard of in the outside world, therefore it has no place here, however honourable it might be as a way of defusing tension, and regardless of ALL the above discussion. Was Trevithick "Cornish" in some sense or other? No shit. But WP:MOSBIO is quite clear - the lead should state his nationality, as commonly understood by a global audience, which was surely "British". The article and infobox are clear about the specific part of Britain in which he was born, and can clarify any relevant issues about Cornishness. And, this is what the page said until April, as far as I can tell. N-HH talk/edits 03:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained this once, you cannot use that reference falsely. Do not make any more changes you do not understand the context of, the reference is more than clear that Trevithick is a Cornish engineer, and to use it to justify him as British is ridicolous. It was agreed for clarification purposes to list his nationality as British Cornish [reference]. If he is to be just British, then an alternative reference must be found, not misusing his son's biography. I can't believe the ignorance of some people to extend their opinions to this matter, when they have clearly never even read the book. I strongly recommend the "British Cornish" designation that was agreed upon is continued. There was never a consensus he was British pre-April.--Southwesterner (talk) 01:45, 27th August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you think "British Cornish" is the consensus that was reached. If anything there is either no consensus, in which case the recommendation at WP:MOSBIO takes precedence (i.e. just British), or there is weak consensus for "British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall". Either way I concur with the reversion by Old Moonraker of your change to the article. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Support "British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall". WP is a worldwide encyclopaedia. Despite what certain nationalists would like. Cornish is not a nationality. We would not allow "Cumbrian" or "Yorkshireman" or even "Devonian" as a nationality in the lead. "British Cornish" is so horrible that I could not endure keeping it. Trevethick was important, but like many inventors was not very successful in producing a commerial product from his invention. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This article must feel like the bowl of petunias: "Oh, no, not again". Keep "was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall", as we decided last time this tiresome issue came up. Upsetting or appeasing 'Cornish nationalists' is not a valid criterion for deciding what makes for a better article. The more this comes up the less inclined I am to listen. Globbet (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Support "British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall".--M R G WIKI999 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a little point of interest here, Richard Trevithick's mother Anne Teagues, although living with her family in Cornwall, was from an Irish family (gleaned from the book Richard Trevithick Giant of Steam), so I guess that makes Richard, at best, only half 'Cornish' given that other ancestors might have been non-cornish too. FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

edit request

{{editrequest}} Could we create a redlink for Tregajorran in the first sentence of the Childhood and early life section?©Geni 17:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion

Category:Richard Trevithick has been tagged for deletion. Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Category:Richard Trevithick Andy Dingley (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ignored.

The lead is currently pretty thin on the ground and tagged appropriately for it, so I'll make a suggestion - is it possibly widely acknowledged that Trevithick is someone who hasn't gotten as much credit as he deserved? His legacy is an untarnished one but like so many notable inventors, he doesn't get much credit. SURE this has been mentioned allot. Would this kind of thing be good for further research? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Coalbrookdale 1802 vs. Pen-y-darren 1804 locomotives

This addition describes the modern Swansea replica as "inaccurate", on the grounds of major working parts being reversed. However this is not an inaccuracy, rather a confusion as to which locomotive was being reproduced.

The earlier 1802 Coalbrookdale locomotive had the furnace beneath the crosshead. It was also drawn in a surviving drawing that has been widely reproduced - three versions on this page alone.

The 1804 Pen-y-darren locomotive corrected the obvious drawback and placed the furnace and crosshead at opposite ends. No drawing survives, but text descriptions do, sufficient to verify this.

So the Swansea replica (furnace and crosshead apart) is not "inaccurate" as such, but rather is based (as it is described) on a best-guess appearance for the Pen-y-darren locomotive. Our description should reflect that, although the details listed are brooadly those affected. We should also lose the incorrect illustration for the "Pen-y-darren locomotive", as we know this is unrealistic and is actually the Coalbrookdale locomotive.

I thought this error had been fixed years ago? No doubt someone found another coffee table book and "fixed" it for us. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The recent the addition in question contains enough terminological howlers to indicate a paucity of expertise in this field. I have re-jigged it a bit, but it needs more work really. Globbet (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Should banner be removed?

Should the banner complaining of insufficient inline citations be removed? I see plenty of inline citations which were, presumaby, add after the banner was added. Roly (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, there are still several sections with no inline refs at all: Marriage and career; Career; Early experiments; The London Steam Carriage; Engineering projects; Draining the Peruvian silver mines; Trevithick leaves for South America; Later projects; Legacy. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious EL?

http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=759395

Just added, I've just removed it. It's a fascinating read and puts forward many interesting ideas. However it's also full of holes. This should be read by anyone who is already familiar with Trevithick and the engineering of this period in detail. However I don't like the idea of any new readers dropping into it - it's just too flakey.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that with a subject as well-known as Trevithick, we should discourage the use of such websites. This appears to be litlte more than a blog, which is not a WP:RS. Francis Trevithick's biography of his father is an older work, and is not always right. I would still regard Burton as the best source. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Burton? It's a good personal biography, but there ought to be a better coverage of the technical side of Trevithick. Mind you, it would be too enormous to find much of a market these days. What is there that does for Trevithick what Dickinson & Jenkins does for Watt? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A friend has a much more thorough treatment, written in the 1930's I think, which I will get details of. There is also the new book The Oblivion of Richard Trevithick by Philip Hosken of the Trevithick Society. Same friend has a copy, which I am hoping to get my grubby mits on soon. Globbet (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's: Dickinson, Henry Winram; Titley, Arthur (2010) [1934]. Richard Trevithick: The Engineer and The Man. Cambridge. I borrowed it a couple of years ago and agree with my friend it is more reliable than Francis' and more technical than Burton. It has recently been reprinted, I see. I have not read the Hosken yet, but he says it deals more thoroughly with the correspondence. Globbet (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Having not seen Hosken's book, I cannot judge it. I was more concerned that excessive reliance should not be placed on Francis Trevithck's book. Dickinson was a good historian, but (as an older historian) his work may have been overtaken by more recnet discoveries. In this particular case, the issue may not arise, but that is the principle. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Much of the recent scholarship in stationary engines is based on examining old photos, as new collections come to light. Yet pre-WW2, historians (and George Watkins is the obvious example) could simply go and look at surviving engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Upside down & power to weight

The Chris Barrie documentary says that Trevithick hung a patent lawyer (serving Watt injunctions) upside down over a mineshaft. Also, that the important power to weight ratio of the London Steam Train *engine* is 3 hp to 300 kg (compare with Watt and Wright Brothers engines). There might be sources for that somewhere on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.138.208.8 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

England or Britain

Someone made this article worse by saying Cornwall is in England as opposed to the UK GB. Considering the laws in the UK state specifically Cornwall, as seperate from England then it should be Britian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.16.43 (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, please do not change without consensus. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that it reads badly because, for some reason, it mentions Cornwall twice; "British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall, England, UK. Born in the mining heartland of Cornwall..."Obscurasky (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

First two sentences sound repetitive.

The first two sentences sound repetitive and don't read terribly well. It effectively says that he's British from the UK. And that he's from Cornwall, born in Cornwall. I can see there's been some disagreement over the opening text previously, but I think it could still do with some minor tweaking Obscurasky (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nationality 2

Surname Trevithick is definitelly NOT germanic, british in origin, but Slavic. Travichik more preciselly means "grass-er". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.96.75 (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I always thought that Trevithick, as with many Cornish names, was Celtic in origin. I don't know if Slavic is also Celtic. --Roly (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a Cornish name; the initial "Tre-" implies it ("by Tre, Pol and Pen, ye shall know all Cornish men"), and means "settlement" in the Cornish language (see kw:wikt:tre); the terminal "-ck" pretty much confirms it. Compare for instance Marcus Trescothick. It's a very common form of place name in Cornwall: to take a random example, at the article on the village of Trewennack, follow the coordinates link and see just how many places in that area begin "Tre-" or end "-ck". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Trevithick. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050311225256/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/cornwall/uncovered/stories/august2004/walk_through_time/06.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/cornwall/uncovered/stories/august2004/walk_through_time/06.shtml

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

firedoor or fire door, and redlinking

I want to discuss these recent edits:

• [2], firedoor -> fire door (and another change), unregistered editor, no edit summary
• [3], revert of the above edit, User:Andy Dingley, no substantive edit summary
• [4], firedoor -> firedoor, User:Verbcatcher (me), edit summary "unlink firedoor. Not a likely future article, not mentioned in Steam engine"
• [5], revert of the above edit, User:Andy Dingley, edit summary "Restore redlink"

My first issue is that User:Andy Dingley has made two reverts without giving reasons in the edit summary or in the talk page.

The second issue is whether "firedoor" or "fire door" is the correct spelling for "The door of a furnace offering access to the fire inside". I have looked in four dictionaries all of which give "fire door" but not firedoor.

• Oxford English Dictionary (the full multi-volume edition): entry for "fire door" which mentions the form "fire-door" but not "firedoor".
• Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Luxury Edition. OUP Oxford. 18 August 2011. pp. 534–. ISBN 978-0-19-960111-0.
• The Collins Dictionary of the English Language (2nd ed.). Collins. 1986. p. 570. ISBN 0 00 433134-6.
• Wiktionary: wikt:fire door.

The third issue is whether and how we should link the term: to the fire door article, or give a red link (possibly to fire door (furnace)), or leave the term unlinked. The fire door article only discusses doors used for fire safety, whereas we are referring to the door of a furnace. We could expand the existing fire door article, but the two meanings are too remote to comfortably share an article. I do not favour giving a red link. According to Wikipedia:Red link we should give a red link "to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable", such as for "a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition".

Fire door in the sense of door the of a furnace is insufficiently notable for an article. If we did have an article it would contain little more than a dictionary definition of the term. There is no mention of the technicalities of fire doors in the steam engine, Steam locomotive, Steam locomotive components and furnace articles. A quick web search gave no useful material.

On this basis I will change the spelling to "fire door", and leave it unlinked. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDLINK. Also general purpose dictionaries are of little use for a technical topic. This is a technical topic, it has a recorded history that is worth coverage in an encyclopedic article. But if you're confusing it with fire door, there seems little point in wasting further time with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Bit of a long shot, but how did Trevithick spell it? Obscurasky (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There are very few records of Trevithick's early work - although Farey might have something. The first time I can see him using it was in 1815, as "fire door", but that was for his water-tube [sic] boiler, not the return flue boilers.

Trevithick doesn't seem to have used a sophisticated firedoor and the 1802 engine is drawn with a simple side-hinged solid door and no control of secondary air. More sophisticated doors don't really appear until Fairbairn and the Lancashire boiler, then around 1860 for locomotive practice everything gets a lot more controlled with the invention of the brick arch and the use of coal as a fuel. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. Appreciated. Obscurasky (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The full edition of the OED is a historical dictionary and is an exellent resource for this issue. Its entry on this meaning of fire door is:

fire door, n. [...] 1. A door giving access to the fire in a furnace or kiln, for purposes of tending it, adding fuel, etc. 1765 J. Smeaton Reports (1797) I. 223 F. is the boiler, f. the fire-door. 1794 J. Watt in T. Beddoes & J. Watt Considerations Medicinal Use & Production Factitious Airs ii. 15 Those who wish occasionally to convert these furnaces into distilling furnaces, may have a fire-door d fitted to one of the side holes. 1838 Civil Engineer & Architect's Jrnl. 1 326/2 It produced more steam than was required, and with the fire-door kept open. 1859 W. J. M. Rankine Man. Steam Engine §304 The fire-door, which closes the mouth-piece or doorway. 2009 D. A. Butler Other Side of Night iii. 41 These were quickly raked into a pit below the firebox and the fire-door swung closed again.

This gives support for "fire-door" with a hyphen, but the title of the entry indicates that the usual current form has no hyphen. I think here the hyphen is an issue of style rather then of correctness. Hyphens are discussed at MOS:HYPHEN, but I have not studied this in detail.

Whatever spelling Trevithick used, we are writing in modern English and should use the normal modern spelling.

You have indicated that there is some scope for a description of the history and technology of fire doors. If you have citable sources then I suggest you add a new section to Steam engine or to Steam locomotive. If you have sources but are not in a position to add the new content then please give the references on a talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In Locomotive Management Hodgson & Lake use 'firehole door'. Globbet (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Trevithick. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308162312/http://open-lectures.co.uk/Industrial-Archaeology-Societies/2918-Trevithick-Society-The/View-details.html to http://www.open-lectures.co.uk/Industrial-Archaeology-Societies/2918-Trevithick-Society-The/View-details.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130102121618/http://www.cornishminer.com/product_info.php/cPath/25/products_id/230 to http://www.cornishminer.com/product_info.php/cPath/25/products_id/230

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Trevithick. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612124726/http://www.locos-in-profile.co.uk/Articles/Early_Locos/early1.html to http://www.locos-in-profile.co.uk/Articles/Early_Locos/early1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625220403/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAtrevithick.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAtrevithick.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Trevithick. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415125004/http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/trevithic_loco to http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/trevithic_loco/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)