Template talk:British Rail DMU

This template describes articles about British Rail diesel multiple units. Therefore it should categorise articles under Category:British Rail diesel multiple units, as it is a distinct sub-category of Category:Multiple units. (Our Phellap)

TFD

This template was nominated for deletion, but did not have consensus to delete. Thus it is kept. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2005. However, given its sheer size it may be worth considering to split it or convert it to a list. Radiant_* 09:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Redesign proposal

I have created a new design for the template. It can be found below. The benifits of it over the current design are that it is collapsible, it has the v-d-e function, the layout is clearer and the template takes up less space on the page.

I would like to hear the thoughts of other people first, and have a consensus reached on whether it should be implemented. If you wish to make any changes to the design, then please make a copy of the template below, then modify it. This means the templates can be compared against each other.

I have also made similar proposals on the related templates here and here.

--Jorvik 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Much cleaner and less "tall" than the original. I had been thinking about proposing a change myself and this is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. The same goes for the proposals at Template talk:British Rail Locomotives and Template talk:British Rail EMU, although I would suggest different colours for each template (not sure which ones though). -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have implemented the redesign following no objections. I have kept the colours on all the templates the same based on comments on the Locomotives template talk page, and the need for consistency. --Jorvik 09:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Second section: the first gens (original TOPS)

Do we really need to keep the second section (in this grab)? The information about the original TOPS numbers are already in the articles themselves,

and it would require extra work to do what I was considering doing before I came across this section: marking withdrawn classes in italics. Anywho: thoughts anyone? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

140 & 104

I've just come across this template by accident with no real train knowledge, so I don't understand why the link for 140 in First Generation Original TOPS takes you to the British Rail Class 104 page. There's nothing to enlighten the uninformed visitor as to whether this "140" redirect is correct or simply an oversight. It would be nice if someone could elaborate. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Split up BR and post-privatisation?

I was just wondering if there would be any merit in splitting a "post-privatisation" section from the 2nd generation section (and similar on the other templates). Post-privatisation stock really is quite different in many respects, and I think such a split would be useful. Does anyone agree? --Muzer (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)