Talk:Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Brunel, Rattler & Alecto

The article claims that the RN commissioned Brunel to carry out the famous trial of HMS Rattler vs. HMS Alecto to settle the paddle vs. screw argument. However the RN's commission was in 1844 to study different forms of screw propeller and the paddle comparison wasn't until the following year. Is there any reference to support Brunel being involved with this later trial too? Surely Brunel had already made his own mind up and would hardly have been regarded as an impartial judge?

It's also worth noting that the Great Britain had already been launched before both of these trials. Brunel's own die was already cast. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I have removed that and put in a reference to the tests he conducted on the steam tug Archimedes. I think this may come from mis-information from Adam Hart Davis in a TV programme. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Recognition

There used to be a pub, in Bristol, called 'The Great Engineer' - the pub sign was of Brunel. The address was Goodhind Street, Bristol - BS5 0ST. I don't know whether the pub is till there [possibly knocked down, with flats built on the site]. Can any one confirm. Is the [former??] existence worth mentioning? Autochthony wrote 2050z 4th December 2009. 86.151.60.238 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There was also a pub, at the bottom of the Temple Meads incline in Temple Gate House called The Reckless Engineer and later this was changed to the Isambard. Think the Holiday Inn Express has now comsumed the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.27 (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, "The Reckless Engineer" is still where you describe. I don't know if it was ever renamed, but if it was the owners must have thought again. The Holiday Inn is in part of the same block, but is separate.Redcliffe maven (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Good article still?

Whilst I'm not sure enough work has been done to restore Featured Article Status, I think the article is at least a Good Article. Does a more involved editor want to nominate it. If it fails the GA nomination, then it's still at least B class, and I've rated it as such for Wikiproject Bristol with this edit NullofWest Fill the Void 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a significant rewrite in the works, and plan to go through GA and FA after that. It might could skate through GA as is, but I'd rather have it in great shape first. Maralia (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It Died

Did he die or did the gauge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talk • contribs) 05:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Saltash bridge

The last para of the article implies that Brunel´s name was only added to the bridge supports in 1959 but in fact it was there from the start. See old photos e.g. at

http://www.ssplprints.com/lowres/43/main/50/129546.jpg

and

http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/imfile/02660.jpg

Thanks

81.86.167.71 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim Roberts

If you read the supporting citation you will see that the name was added on the occasion of Brunel's centenary and then gradually disappeared due to layers of paint. Recently restored by Network Rail, I have adjusted the wording to make this clear. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the cite it suggests that it was a commemorative plaque was added at the centenary, not Brunel's name. Network Rail here had moved the access platforms obscuring his name, and moved the plaque from Saltash station to the bridge pier. It doesn't mention the name being obscured by paint.

You can compare the Saltash end in this 1979 picture and this Dec 2006 picture, and the Plymouth end in this 1979 picture and this Dec 2006 picture. Notice how the newer pictures have a railing right round the top of the tower, whereas the older ones have a small railing in the middle, and the access platforms have moved around the back.

EdJogg (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also see Royal Albert Bridge#Changes since 1859 where this all made clear. This article needs further updating for accuracy. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit on the lettering added in 1859 following Brunels death are still not clear, it still reads as if his name and date 1859 were added in 1959, this is not correct. In a GWR poster of 1945 the lettering has been illustrated. http://www.ssplprints.com/image/85547/anrooy-anton-abraham-van-the-royal-albert-bridge-saltash-gwr-poster-1945 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.189.5 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Jasper Fforde cameo?

In the Thursday Next books, which are more or less based out of Swindon, a character named Isambard Kingdom Buñuel makes small but frequent appearances as an eccentric and brilliant book engineer. Something worth including? I was shocked and amused to come across this article and find that the character was inspired by a real person. 66.108.94.198 (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, this sort of trivia is not suited to an encyclopaedia, perhaps a passing mention in the article on the books. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel

The section at the bottom of the page, Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, is buried far too deep, in my opinion. I rarely scroll beyond the See Also′s, so I went back to Google when I couldn't find the list I was looking for. It turns out there's a Category page called Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, too, but it's alphabetical and doesn't show any dates. Plus I can't seem to link to it properly. Can we have a new section 10 (before the See Also′s) with a complete chronological list? I may do it myself, so excuse me if I duplicate some text that's already there...
nagualdesign (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'Works of...' template is not intended to be comprehensive -- more a selection of highlights -- the Category should contain 'everything'. The bottom of the page is the traditional place for navigation templates such as this; however, in this case I think you would be justified in moving it to the end of the 'Legacy' section (where it is also conveniently close to 'See also'.

Alternatively, you could create List of works by Isambard Kingdom Brunel (title negotiable!) based on the category, making sure that entries were at least listed chronologically and/or by subject (railways, bridges, ships, etc) to add value beyond the category membership (which would persist). This could then be linked from the top of the 'Legacy' section here.

EdJogg (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Engineer

Brunel was not just a civil engineer, but also nautical and mechanical. The first paragraph should be modified. DesmondW (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Eastern

It can't possibly have been part of Brunel's vision (in the 1830s) for the Great Western Railway that passengers should cross the Atlantic on the 'Great Eastern', not built until the late '50s! I changed it to 'Great Western', which was contemporary. 86.181.115.142 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

Its a useful and appealing addition, but it really creates problems in the article with sandwiching of text (see Wikipedia:Images): at one point on my display there is the infobox, the timeline and a picture squashing the text. I have tried various options to sort the problem but none seems to work. Does anyone have any suggestions?--SabreBD (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it any better now?

I've replaced

{| align="right"

with

{| style="float: right; clear: right;"

'align' doesn't do quite what you might expect in HTML - read brainjar.com about CSS float if you want to understand this stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks its definitely an improvement, although I have to be honest and say that there are still problems as on my display (this does vary a lot) there are still pictures sandwiching text in the Thames Tunnel and Bridges sections. I think this will do for now, but it is a MOS issues and so is should come up if this article goes to GA or back to FA review. In the end some pictures may have to be removed or go in an album.--SabreBD (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks very good. An improvement I'd say. But why do we slip into the past tense at his 1836 marriage? I have added a note at template talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've re-positioned the images to try and improve things. All bridge images are now on the left, to avoid being pushed down by the timeline, and I've added some whitespace to the rendering of later sections to stop images getting pushed too far down. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Difference Engine

Perhaps we should mention that I.K. Brunel is a major figure in the alternative-history novel The Difference Engine. He succeeds the fictionalized Lord Byron as prime minister. --Christofurio (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, because Brunel's relevance to a novel does not mean that the novel has any relevance to Brunel. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Born where?

Born 9 April 1806 Weybridge, England... Or The son of French civil engineer Sir Marc Isambard Brunel and Sophia Kingdom Brunel, Isambard Kingdom Brunel was born on 9 April 1806 in Portsmouth, Hampshire. ...Which is it, as currently this article contradicts itself. 92.233.49.173 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

His older sisters were born in Weybridge, but by the time IKB was born, they'd moved to Portsmouth to work on the block making machines. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. Probably worth getting that right. 92.233.49.173 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the best early life descriptions I've read (good for Marc too) is in the first of a trilogy of Brunel books that aren't well known: Stephen K Jones' Brunel in South Wales. Well recommended, as they cover lots of Bruneliana that's poorly covered elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth, we have conflicting dates...more info here http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Brunel,_Isambard_Kingdom Veryscarymary (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ballad of the Great Eastern

I think the song "Ballad of the Great Eastern" on Sting's latest album is about Brunel isn't it? Maybe that should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.39.132 (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source for that, per the policy on verifiability, otherwise it's personal opinion. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do the lyrics to the song apply as an RS? Or would they be considered Primary Source?

(I forgot how to quote)

And the name upon the contract, Isambard Brunel.

And the name upon the draftsman's chart, Isambard Brunel.

And the name upon the coffin... Isambard Brunel.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+great+eastern+lyrics&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS849US854&oq=the+great+eastern+ly&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.9809j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

No. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Getting article back to FA status

Having recently read Rolt's biography, I might start working on this article to see if I can't get the article back to FA status. Initially, I'll use Rolt and the 1870 biography to write the article before checking with a third book. Anyone have any suggestions as to authoritative sources?
I'll open a Peer Review when I'm done. Edgepedia (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Rolt would be a bad move. He's the one originally responsible for most of the myths about Brunel. The main books on Brunel I'd look at would be Brindle, Stephen K. Jones' Welsh trilogy and Brunel Junior's. It's a mark of just how bad this article is at present that these aren't already here (except Brunel Junior). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this could have saved me a lot of work. I'll see if I can get hold of at last one of these sources. Edgepedia (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

These books look expensive. I think I'll unwatch this and move on. I could copyedit the text, removing peacock phases, etc, but perhaps that would give it a gloss it doesn't deserve. I'll perhaps come back later, but I have a comment: One thing that's not clear in the article is that the Great Western (ship) sailed before the Great Western Railway opened. Care is needed in designing a structure for the article to allow for readers to get to know the man (this is a biography) without it becoming disjointed. Edgepedia (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Brindle's cheap because you can often pick copies up in the cheapie bookshops. Brunel Junior is on Google and there's also an affordable reprint for the bicentenary (links are in the article on balloon flange girders). Even Jones is reasonable money, although you are after three volumes for the set! I found mine in our local library by accident, then bought them. As I've also heard him speak locally a couple of times, I don't know if he had a hand in how our tiny town's library acquired them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrian Vaughan wrote a biog of IKB, and in the preface/foreword/introduction/something he warns us about the problems with Rolt. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What's in Rolt isn't too bad, the problem is that he misses out large amounts of Brunel's admittedly vast body of work. This leads to an over emphasis on some pieces, those that are now well-known, to the level where one museum in Bristol recently had a caption describing "Brunel's bridge" in Bristol (i.e. the only Brunel bridge in Bristol), when that's the one he didn't even build. We also have at least two surviving Brunel bridges, in London and Bristol, that were only recently rediscovered. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

British or English?

There's some recent edit-warring (on both sides) to swap between describing him as either British or English in the lead. Is there any clear consensus as to which?

• His nationality is British. English isn't a nationality.
• The infobox says "British". It would be a mistake to change this to English, as the infobox template captions this as "nationality".
• He has no strong tie to "Englishness", as distinct from "Welshness" or "Scottishness". He was indeed born in England, but to a French father and he was himself educated in France. His career is predominantly British, but not English.

We've seen regular edit warring over Richard Trevithick and whether he was (he obviously was) "Cornish" or English, when Cornish is an officially recognised minority within Britain. Similar Charles Parsons is importantly Anglo-Irish, but this was edit-warred away to British. In Brunel's case though, "British" is as much as matters. He has no special connection to England. He did as much work in Wales as in England – even, importantly, some in Ireland to recover the Great Britain.

So, English or British? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

English definitely. British could mean anything, especially in that era. Anyone from the colonies, or Ireland, could be included. English narrows it down specifically. --Dmol (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW. English IS a nationality. The word has several meanings, including "an ethnic and/or cultural, character or identity".--Dmol (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Cornish has only been an officially recognised minority within Britain since yesterday. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10786212/Cornwall-is-far-more-than-just-a-county-and-now-its-official.html --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So ethnicity is now a nationality? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

British. He was voted one of the most favourite Britons for example. We are turning the British people pages into ridicule if there is a continuation to reduce British people into smaller parts. What next, have Londoners instead of British/English too? Erzan (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

English Agree with Dmol, more precise to say English. His Nationality is listed in the info box so it would be pointless to state it twice.--English Bobby (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be even more precise to say that he was French-English, from Portsmouth, or a British Taurean – yet what relevance would they have? It's relevant that he's British. That much influenced his life. Anything more specific than this is irrelevant trivia. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

'One of the great British engineers'

'This is the revolutionary Briton who built Britain'

'Brilliant British engineer'

'was a British engineer'

'British civil and mechanical engineer'

2nd best Briton on BBC poll

'Isambard Kingdom Brunel: British Engineer'

British victorians and British history section

In front of a British flag

'Voted the second Greatest Briton of all time, after Winston Churchill'

'British public voted Brunel as the second greatest Briton'

'He is one of the most celebrated Britons'

'Britain's most famous engineer and one of the true Great Britons'

All describe him as British. Erzan (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Per sources MOS:IDENTITY, with WP:OPENPARA seemingly downplaying ethnicity and his father's French nationality/mothers English nationality/ethnicity. Crucial - reach WP:CONSENSUS here first before changing.

Note there are sources for both sides which need weighing (it may be British, but ignoring all the Best of British coverage is useful)

"English"

Oxford Dictionary of English - Page 223 "English"

"English engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel"

p.s. If we can have Scottish and Welsh, we can logically have English as a nationality. There may or may not in this case be sources to support "English" nationality. Widefox; talk 01:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Or you can be inclusive and have him British as to acknowledge his place in history for all Britons, regardless of where in the UK they are born. Why not reach for inclusivity of identity rather than excluding 20% of the British population.

PS. Why link a page to the Oxford English language dictionary? Erzan (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a classic WP:UKNATIONALS question and entire keyboards have been worn out while debating it. James Clerk Maxwell is described as Scottish, and there is a tendency to use the home nations rather than the more generic "British".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Which states Look specifically for evidence that the person has a preferred nationality. The links, especially from the British newspapers, and the fact that his nationality on the infobox has been left British suggest describing him as a Briton or British is widely common. Erzan (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not what "his preferred nationality" means.

Stop edit warring over this and many articles, and read WP:RS. WP is not a RS, and good secondary sources are important (rather than some newspapers, and modern populist British campaigns). By ignoring the English sources, you haven't even started balancing them yet, as needed to persuade in order to reach consensus for this edit. Widefox; talk 23:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Guardian ref describes him as "one of the UK's greatest engineers". It uses "English engineer" in a caption that also says he "was responsible for Bristol's suspension bridge ", which he didn't build and wasn't built to his design. Not the most convincing authority. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

English isn't a nationality? Jesus, Dingley, have you told the Commonwealth Games organising committee? Lucky you spotted that - it could have been very embarrassing at the opening ceremony. You must point it out to the OED next time they ask you to check over their dictionary in your role of consultant. Better cc FIFA while you're at it. And Wikipedia - that's wrong, as well.

It's only a little while ago you were declaring that "Anglo-Irish" is a nationality, then, a couple of days later, explaining that it's an ethnic group. Any chance of you making your mind up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.122 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I don't have a horse in this race. My point is that there are RS on both sides. Fair point about the quality of that newspaper source. I've encouraged better sources than newspapers above. Finding RS for an informed weighing of them would be a way forward instead of (Erzan's) edit warring, and putting spurious arguments about claiming someone for the larger cohort. WP:CLUE. Widefox; talk 00:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Widefox; talk 08:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That's my point. Even the ref cited as supporting "English" used "UK" more prominently. RS will not solve this question, as either term is reasonably applicable. Comparing him though to Trevithick, Parsons and Maxwell though, they all have strong regional ties and so should rightly be more specific. Yet Brunel doesn't have any such tie. "Britain" is as narrow as is relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The OED source is significant: English (offtopic: for his father French-born English). Britannica: British. His three listed significant projects were in England (caveat SS Great Britain). Widefox; talk 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The OED is an etymological dictionary. It is not technically authoritative on many subjects beyond this (take a look at Talk:Siphon for the current mess). As already noted, we can provide RS to support either side of this. WP is not one of those sources though and "Brunel's three projects were in England" say more about the current poor state of this article (and maybe Rolt) than they indicate an English bias to his work. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Point taken about OED. Can you say which failing the article has in this respect? The vacuum system and the ships were in England. [1] Brunel to me seems like a couple of his peers - Scottish engineers in Scotland, so logically we'd have English engineers in England (else it all gets a bit West Lothian, by analogy). I've personally thought of him as British until now, but a strong argument for English can be made. Widefox; talk 02:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Brunel was (thanks to Rolt) well known for his English projects whilst others are ignored, like the Eastern Bengal Railway, the South Wales Railway, the standard gauge Taff Vale Railway, possibly building an entire new port town at Abermawr, actually building it at Neyland, the important and technically novel Goetre Coed Viaduct, whose practical achievement of curvature then influenced the nearby Cefn Coed Viaduct, the docks of Briton Ferry, defining the entire shape of Cardiff by moving the river Taff, early works at Penarth docks that would eventually involve his son Henry Marc, bridges to link England to Wales at Chepstow and an even greater span across the Severn itself. Portable buildings, including hospitals and kitchens, for the Crimean War and even a little bridge for Her Majesty at Balmoral. So, not much outside England. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Great info, agree worthwhile redressing gaps / biases of a source. Clearly a large body of work in Wales, ranging from significant to didn't happen (Abermawr). The bottom line is he was born in England, died in England, married in England, lived mostly in England (I'm guessing), most remembered for his work in England (the Bristol based GWR - it had an English flag) and linking those routes to Bristol, England resulting in his best known works in England. The prefab buildings were made in England. The big ships made in England, were a spinoff to connect Bristol, England (although due to technical reasons switched to Wales). I agree with you in that his nationality is less clearly defined (and more importantly cherished) than Thomas Telford, but in comparison, Telford died in England and the Menai Suspension Bridge or Pontcysyllte Aqueduct don't make him British. Brunel's French education seems the background to his notability, but his most notable works and links are in England. (Caveat is my relative ignorance of the subject, especially the Welsh parts, despite knowing Abermawr very well - oops). Widefox; talk 10:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't see that it matters - when he died the obituaries referred to him as 'the eminent engineer' not the English or British one. But for what it's worth Brunel Jr's book contains various letters written by IKB in which he contrasts 'how they do it abroad' with 'how we do it in England', which would suggest that either he regarded himself as English, or he regarded English and British as synonymous (which used to be a very English trait) Rjccumbria (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Radio 4, (time per my sign) Great Lives referred to him in the middle as British, and at the end in an obituary as English. Widefox; talk 22:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say British is more appropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Intro

• As to "What's wrong with this article" then just from the intro:

As a result of the Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846, the gauge was changed to standard gauge throughout the GWR network.

Brunel astonished Britain by proposing to extend the Great Western Railway westward to North America

The 1846 Gauge Act had no direct effect on the GWR's broad gauge network, it merely specified the use of standard gauge for new lines. The South Wales Railway of 1850 (authorised by its act of 1845) was broad gauge. The Vale of Neath and the South Wales Mineral Railway, amongst others, were even later and still broad gauge. For routes to Cornwall, broad gauge didn't go out of service until nearly 50 years after the Act and certainly not because of its provisions.

Britons should not have been 'astonished' by a GWR plan to extend to North America by steamship, as it had always been part of the plans for the railway West from London and was part of the original prospectus for the South Wales and the Bristol and South Wales Union Railways for it to head west into Pembrokeshire and construct such a transatlantic port. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The 7-foot "Brunel" railway track gauge(s)

There are talks about the Brunel/GWR track gauge(s) at WT:UK railroads and {RailGauge} talk. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

And then we get ignorant crap like this, which takes a grossly inaccurate section and manages to make it even worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Bridges of Isambard Kingdom Brunel

The Category:Bridges of Isambard Kingdom Brunel has only 18 entries, two of which are not full bridge articles. Surely there must be more Brunel bridges worthy of full articles. Is some editor up to the challenge?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your appeal seems to have had some result at least: Special:Contributions/82.132.216.184 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Citations

The citations were a mixture of types. I've converted all the bare text and bare URL types to templates. There were a number of bare short forms, I've changed then to {{sfn}}. There were also a few <ref>{{harvnb|...}}</ref> forms which for sake of uniformity I've converted to {{sfn}}. There are still some short form references using named refs that I'll have a go at tomorrow (it's 23:24 UK time and I'll be off to bed shortly).

Question: after I've finished the tidying, there will be a mixture of in-line citations and short form citations. WP:CITE indicates that there should be only one type on a page, but also warns against changing the citation type without discussion. However "Others will improve the formatting if needed". I propose over the next week to convert all citations to {{sfn}} with appropriate reference entries. This will:

• Ensure uniformity of style
• Avoid unnecessary duplication of details
• Allow "tool tips" and cross linking to function.

- any comments or objections? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I added some page numbers and a couple of additional references. I would support sfn throughout and will try to look at some more of the references.— Rod ^talk 21:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Be careful though, there's one of the senior editors redoing my work so I'll be backing off for a while, I've plenty to do without locking horns with someone who has done 20 times as much as me! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I always try to be careful... but I do wonder what a senior editor is - everyone's contribution is welcomed. There are several books in the Notes section (with isbn etc) which could be moved into the References section & sfn applied.— Rod ^talk 21:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Basically, your changes all used {{citation}} (also known as Citation Style 2), which the article did not previously use - it used a mixture of {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}} etc. - this is known as Citation Style 1. CS1 and CS2 should not be mixed on the same page, so I altered all those {{citation}} to the most appropriate CS1 template. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

SS Great Britain: The largest ship ever built

The article (at the moment) mentions in its introduction that Brunel developed the SS Great Britain, "the largest ship ever built" when it was launched (with 322 ft). It is a pretty bold claim considering that the page describing the Chinese treasure ships casualy mentions ships ranging between 400 and 600 feet in 15th century China, and as long as 425 feet in 3rd century BC Greece. It is rather difficult to be that sure of the numbers, so shouldn't we play it safe, and call it rather "the largest steamship ever built" or something similar? Since I am not a regular contributor, I leave the matter to your hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.67.179.126 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Name

I'm not too happy with "Brunel's name is an amalgamation of his parents' names. He inherited the family name of his father, and his middle name is his mother's surname. This was a common name construction for the time". This particular construction was common at other times, up to and including the 20thC. I have no information either way for current trends since 2000. I'm tempted to remove the final sentence, but then we are back to regarding it as special ("unique" as one editor has put it). Alternatively "This was not an uncommon construction, then as now". Any better ideas? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No objection to removal. Alternative suggestion also seems fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Box Tunnel: oriented or orientated ? can we agree on aligned ??

Trivial, I know but more than once there have been edits in either direction. According to the OED, 'to orient' is the earlier verb and is still good British English; a structure which has been 'oriented' then has an 'orientation'; UK English seems to regard this as leading (by back-formation) to the verb 'to orientate' (which most UK readers would, I think, tend to use in casual speech) but US English regards that back-formation as a vulgar error. Since there is much to be said on both sides, and 'orient' can't be dismissed as not British English, I have ventured to offend both sides by substituting 'aligned'. I hope that's a blue beret intervention, not a blue helmet one. Rjccumbria (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, well done. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isambard Kingdom Brunel. 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/20110629185536/http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Data/Buckinghamshire%20Historic%20Environment%20Forum/20060920/Agenda/Item06.pdf to http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Data/Buckinghamshire%20Historic%20Environment%20Forum/20060920/Agenda/Item06.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isambard Kingdom Brunel. 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/20160429185828/http://www.josephwallace.co.uk/independent-film to http://www.josephwallace.co.uk/independent-film

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Name etymology

Let me begin by saying that this edit summary is dishonest. I gave three reasons for the removal of name etymology. The first is that the source, cited by Andy Dingley as justification for the reversion of my edit, is a 101-year-old name book that, unsurprisingly, does not even mention the subject of this article. If it were a biography of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, I would figure it is somehow relevant. The second reason is that the subject's father is introduced as Sir Marc Isambard Brunel in the previous sentence, so reiterating that his first name was his father's middle name is an insult to the intelligence of whoever reads this article. The same goes for Kingdom, as his mother is named Sophia Kingdom just two sentences prior. And finally, where have you ever seen this done? Does the article about Barack Hussein Obama explain the etymology of his name(s)? Does the one about Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor? Does any biographer of Isambard Kingdom Brunel mention that his name means "iron-bright" or "iron-axe"? Surtsicna (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

So it's 101 years old. What's wrong with that? It's no less verifiable than one published yesterday; and being closer in time to the event, may well be more reliable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGE MATTERS. But frankly, it being 101 years old is the least of my concern. Being closer in time to the event does not mean anything because it has nothing to do with the event, i.e. the subject. It does not even mention him. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree there may be some duplication, although the additional detail about the surname Brunel looks useful. I think many readers would want to know the origin of a name an unusual as Isambard. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that if the etymology of the subject's name were relevant or interesting to readers, an academic biography would include it and we would not have to refer to publications that do not mention the subject at all. Wikipedia is not the place for all kinds of trivia. I find Barack Obama's name more unusual, but I would never suggest that the article about him explain what "Barack" means, from where he got the "Hussein" part, or why "Obama" sounds so quirky. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be very surprised if it has not been mentioned, ever, in any academic biography. But I'm also not sure that Wikipedia is restricted to using only "academic" sources. 10:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Martinevans123 (talk)

To be honest, I would be surprised if it were mentioned in any academic biography. I have never seen a peer-reviewed biography that gives the etymology of the subject's name. And no, Wikipedia is not restricted to academic sources only, but those are the most reliable; since there are plenty of peer-reviewed biographies of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Wikipedia does not need to (and indeed should not) refer to less reliable sources, especially not those that do not mention the subject at all. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't an article on Barack Obama, it's on Isambard Kingdom Brunel. His first name is obscure, and should be explained. His middle name is not obvious, unless a reader reads the one sentence in the article which otherwise explains it. So it's justified to explain his name. It's even sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, it is not obscure. It should not be explained because it is trivial; please prove me wrong by citing one of the dozens of peer-reviewed biographies of Brunel that includes it. Just one of the dozens. And "even sourced"? I would think that being sourced is required by the core Wikipedia policy. The present source is ridiculous, as I have already explained. The one sentence in the article that explains his middle name is right next to the sentence that, again, explains his middle name. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  As the name was also used by his father, perhaps any etymology belongs at Isambard. It wouldn't then need to be sourced to any "academic biography", would it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  That seems a very elegant solution. Paul W (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree, the obvious place for the etymology of the name is the article about the name. Isambard Owen and the people under the Isembard variant should also be mentioned there. Thank you, Martinevans123. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  I've now added Owen. There may be a case for merging those two lists? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  But IKB is by far the more heavily trafficked article, by a factor of 10:1 [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, a very good point. Perhaps a footnote, directing readers to Isambard, would be possible? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  All things are possible. But Surtsicna just prefers doing it his way, and has blanked it again. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  I do not follow your reasoning. We should have the etymology of the name Isambard on this page because this page is the most heavily trafficked one about a man named Isambard? If so, why not have the etymology of the name Henry in the article about Henry VIII of England? Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Henry VIII was the eighth English monarch of the name, after half a millenium of its use. By that point, its meaning is mostly that it's a popular name. And yet, Henry (given name) does give such an etymology. Yet you object to a similar etymology of Isambard, a much rarer name (I only know of four uses, all related). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  I do not object to having an etymology of Isambard at Isambard. That is entirely in line with the etymology of Henry being at Henry (given name). Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  The name "Isambard" is obscure. I only know of four people of that name, three of them are successive generations of the same family - and the fourth (Owen) was named after the middle of the aforementioned generations. So if a French engineer hadn't succeeded in selling his idea for mass production (decades ahead of Henry Ford) to the Royal Navy, we probably wouldn't have this page and not this discussion either, since there wouldn't be anybody notable of that name. The paragraph should remain. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Well maybe. I see that his father Marc was actually baptised as "Isambart". But no sign of any other Isambard first names, even over at fr.wiki. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  That's no more than a conjecture on your part. In Wikipedia terms, it's original research. Please cite a peer-reviewed biography of Brunel to support the idea that the obscure etymology of the name Isambard is worth having in a general biography of Brunel. Just one. This is certainly not something one normally sees in biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  You want a peer-reviewed biography to describe what Wikipedia practice should be? Please name a peer-reviewed biography of anybody that dictates Wikipedia policies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, that is not what I said. Biographies do not dictate Wikipedia policy, but Wikipedia policy does dictate that the content of Wikipedia biographies be based on the content of "reliable, published material on the subject." So, which biography of Isambard Kingdom Brunel says that the name Isambard means bright-axe or bright-iron? Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  Isn't Harrison enough? The title page states that he is a Member of the Council of the Philological Society, London - I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't ask his fellow members to check his work before publication. It certainly states that he was Assisted by Gyða Pulling of Queen's College, London. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I think Harrison is enough to verify the etymology of the name. But Harrison cannot be enough to demonstrate that this information is relevant to the biography of Brunel because not only is Harrison not the author of any biography of Brunel but he does not mention Brunel at all in his work. My point is that if a piece of information cannot be found in any comprehensive publications specializing in Brunel, if it is not mentioned by any of the authors who spent years researching Brunel, then it is safe to conclude that the said piece of information is not relevant to a general encyclopedic biography of Brunel. Surtsicna (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Isambard Kingdom Brunel is a distinctive (if not unique) name.

  Isambard is an unusual name (as well as being a word that is not known for being anything other than a given name), as noted above I only know of four instances.

  Kingdom is an unusual name; whilst a common enough word in English, its use as a name is on a level with somebody being named "Empire", "Principality", "Dukedom", "County" or "Barony".

  Brunel is an unusual name, and many instances have either a direct connection with IKB, or are entities named in his honour.

  Take a trip along the A38 road beyond Plymouth. As you cross the Tamar Bridge, you will see the Royal Albert Bridge on your left. On the outer faces of the main piers is the three-line inscription "I.K.BRUNEL / ENGINEER / 1859". Who or what was this Brunel that the name should be written so large?

  Of course people are going to wonder how his name came about. There is absolutely no need to hide it away in some backwater of a dab page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, seeing that huge name on the bridge, as many millions have, I'd guess people might wonder what "I. K." stands for, not necessarily what the etymology of "Isambard" might be. Just on a slight tangent, do we have any evidence at all that Brunel, or even his father Marc, had any idea of the etymology of their own first names? Perhaps it doesn't matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume that nobody has ever crossed that bridge and wondered about the etymology of the name Isambard. And as I have said already, if no expert in the life and times of Isambard Kingdom Brunel has found it expedient to provide this etymology, then there is absolutely no need for Wikipedia to provide it. I sincerely hope that nobody is going to argue that Wikipedians might know what's important to say about Brunel better than the academics who invested years of their life into researching the man. There is yet no indication that "Isambard" meaning "bright-axe" is anything more than trivia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think it is safe to assume that nobody has ever crossed that bridge and wondered about the etymology of the name Isambard.

Only if you can provide a peer-reviewed source for that. Otherwise it is obvious nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Coming right after a peer-reviewed source for the claim that people crossing the bridge wonder how the man's name came about. But frankly, I care much more about the article not containing ridiculous trivia than about my response to nonsense being branded as nonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What is trivia? IMHO, essentially something that you neither care about nor regard as important. The problem is the word "you". You, Surtsicna, may regard the word's origins as trivia but other people (myself included) find it interesting and therefore it is not "ridiculous trivia". Consider that paper encyclopaedias always have conflicting requirements: keep the size small vs give as much information as possible. For the first time in human history we are building an encyclopaedia where size is virtually not a constraint, so we don't need to follow the rules used by paper works. Removing relevant information is therefore censorship (but as we know WP is WP:NOTCENSORED) or else WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Three experienced editors are aguing to retain the information, one is arguing to remove it. I know that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY but likewise no-one WP:OWNs it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Nobody said that trivia cannot be interesting to some people, but merely being interesting to some people is not grounds for inclusion. This is trivia because it is not found in comprehensive studies of the subject. It does not matter what I care about or what I regard as important but what scholars care about and what is found in scholarly works specializing in the subject. If this were relevant information, you would have no trouble finding it in one (just one!) of the dozens of biographies of this man. Size is indeed not a constraint, but if something is not found in thousands of pages written about the subject, it should not be found in this one page either. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT sort of arguments are avoided by citing sources that prove relevance, not by saying that "other people find it interesting". Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the etymology of Uma Thurman's name also "ridiculous trivia"? No mention of biographies there? Yes, I realise she never built any huge railway bridges. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Judging by the lack of sources bringing Truman and the etymology of her name in any context, I would yes. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your obvious edit to Uma Thurman.

Who has the enthusiasm to take this to a relevant noticeboard and seek a TBAN? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It sure is easier in this case to seek a TBAN than to provide sources. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Who is Truman in this context? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm hoping for a humorous reference from Martinevans123! Surtsicna (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No way! I feel I'm just part of some twisted reality show here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Expectations met! Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"Eh lad, 'appen I'll si'thee down t'ANI." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• As inevitable, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Surtsicna reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: ) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oh dear, I think I may have exposed a difference of opinion here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I wish providing a source that says anything about Isambard Kingdom Brunel being named after a shiny axe was just as inevitable. Alas, sourcing does not rank very highly among everyone's priorities. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"Somerset Bridge" problem

When you drag your cursor over "Somerset Bridge," something else--a train station, as I recall--pops up instead. I don't know how to fix that. Land o Dixie (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Dixie Cheek

The bridge is just to the south of Bridgewater station, and is written up in the same article. The link is actually to Bridgwater_railway_station#Somerset_Bridge which is the section dealing specifically with the bridge. There's nothing to fix. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) That isn't a problem, it's normal behaviour for a piped link and/or redirect to that section of the target article. "Somerset Bridge" doesn't (yet) have it's own article, so this is the nearest internal link. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

She

There are currently at least 8 instances of the word "she" being used to refer to ships. Are these all justified and appropriate? Why don't we just use "it" for an inanimate object like a ship? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's traditional, me hearties. But I do know that some people might not approve. Hooray and up it rises? Bah, humbug.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Speak for yourself dearie. I'd rather be "sucking on a Fisherman's Friend." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Some people don't approve. This led to a political correctness gone mad response from a retired naval chief. The real issue here is Wikipedia writing style. I've never given this much thought, but it is worth having a debate about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How very wokeless. Let's hear it for all those marginalised trans ships. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wokeless? What that? I know what goods transshipment is, containers have made it much easier in the last sixty years or so (but Brunel did have the idea of containerisation to solve the break-of-gauge problem at Gloucester). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be in relation to this revert of mine. I reverted simply because the IP had assumed that the personal pronoun applied to Brunel, whereas if it is read in the context of the whole sentence Brunel himself missed this initial crossing, having been injured during a fire aboard the ship as she was returning from fitting out in London. it is clear that "she" refers to the ship, and so "he" is inappropriate.

Now, it can be argued that "she" is against WP:GNL; but that essay has an exemption for ships, mirrored at WP:SHE4SHIPS. My revert was not intended to take sides on the matter of "she" vs "it", because neither of the words involved was "it". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Category entry under '.'

IKB is categorised in 'Great Western Railway people' where he is deliberately ordered under '.'. (I tried to clean the speck off my screen before realising what it was.) I had to go and check why it happened because it looked so weird, with the full stop being smaller than the bullet point. I presume that it is intentional and done to put him at the top of the list. Why? Granted he is very important, but I have found no guidelines about messing about with the surname sort order just to put one person at the top of the list. And if he needs to be so prioritised, wouldn't '1' give a better result?--Verbarson (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The dot was added by Look2See1 (talk · contribs) in this edit during May 2017. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

GWR locomotives navbar

@Martinevans123:, I would make two points:

Firstly, {{GWR Locomotives}} (which lists mainly classes, rather than locos, but that's another matter) also lists and links to all the CMEs, counting IKB as the first. Therefore it is appropriate to use this navbar on his article. Perhaps the navbar should be renamed?

Secondly, IKB is not a track gauge either, yet the Track Gauge navbar (/list/article) appears on his article.

--Verbarson (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the Track Gauge navbar after I reverted, and also wondered about that. If this is done consistently for all CMEs, then I guess addition is perfectly correct although, yes, the name is a little confusing. Apologies for not asking here first. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:, I have re-reverted the change so the GWR Locomotives (and Classes and CMEs) navbar is in place. I had also placed it on the other CME's articles, so consistency is maintained.

I have left the Track Gauge navbar, since it does actually mention Brunel. I think there is scope for a proper article on the 7' gauge; all the mentions in multi-gauge articles seem a bit dismissive (admittedly, it had little lasting impact globally.)

The IKB navbar is a bit shockingly underpopulated. I intend to add more article links; there are plenty in the IKB category, and others lying around.

--Verbarson (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The IKB navbar is now much fuller and more extensively structured, as described here --Verbarson (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

If this is done consistently for all CMEs Brunel was not a CME. The term Chief Mechanical Engineer was not applied to any GWR man until Churchward, and its first use in Britain seems to have been for F.W. Webb on the LNWR, followed by J.A.F. Aspinall on the LYR. Brunel was Engineer of the Great Western Railway, and whilst he concerned himself with many aspects of engineering, it is with what is now known as civil engineering that he is best known. The duties of a CME are normally understood to include the provision and maintenance of locomotives and rolling stock; in these matters, Brunel seems to have only laid down the (very restrictive) general specification for locomotives, leaving the design very much up to the makers. It is Gooch, appointed before the first loco to Brunel's spec had been delivered, who is the first person to whom the title of CME (in its broadest sense) can be applied, although his actual title was Superintendent of Locomotive Engines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

CME is just my shorthand; the GWR Locomotives navbar does not specify a job title. I believe it links Brunel with those locos/suppliers of locos delivered to his specification (which Gooch then had to sort out).--Verbarson (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggested naval (ie military) engineering

This Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Brunel claims at the very end that IKB "worked on the improvement of large guns and designed a floating armoured barge" during the Crimea War. I have never come across any suggestion of this elsewhere. The only link to the Crimean War that I am aware of is the Renkioi Hospital. Does anybody have any evidence of this naval engineering, or even know why such a claim might be made? --Verbarson (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This, on Wikisource, from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on Brunel: "He paid much attention to the improvement of large guns, and designed a floating gun-carriage for the attack on Kronstadt in the Russian War (1854)". As source, it gives "See The Life of I. K. Brunel, C.E. (1870), by his son, Isambard Brunel." Other web pages with similar comments appear to be copies of this. Did Isambard fils really have information that no-one else seems to have noticed?--Verbarson (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Steven Brindle mentions them in Brunel - the man who built the world (2006). Pages 240-241 in the hardback edition... 'Brunel envisaged and designed 'gunboats' or floating batteries, largely submerged hulls which could carry siege guns with which to attack Russian ports. He presented his designs to the Admiralty in 1854 and again in 1855 but nothing happened. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Remember the children's magazine Look and Learn? An archive is available online, including this article, which includes this paragraph: During the Crimean War (1854-6) Brunel, infuriated at the futile naval bombardment of the strong Russian base at Kronstadt, designed a floating siege gun. It was rather like a semi-submerged submarine, with only the conning tower, which contained a siege gun firing three rounds a minute, above water. Unfortunately the Admiralty showed little interest, and even lost the model which he sent them.

As I have no reliable source I will let it be.--Verbarson (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I do remember Look and Learn, my primary school had a stack of back issues. Some time in 1971 or 1972, aged about seven or so, I came across these and was intrigued by an issue whose cover story was titled either "Whatever happened to Apollo 13?" or perhaps "What happened to Apollo 13?". That's the only article I remember, but I can't find it in that archive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This one? --Verbarson (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Might have been, Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it was at a public library, or a neighbour who dump her older son's back copies on us, but I do remember reading a lot of stories about The Trigan Empire, all out of order.--Verbarson (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have just discovered Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, and within ICE Publishing have found Isambard Junior's book. The formatting is a bit weird, but Chapter 15 'Miscellaneous Works' has accounts of IKB's work on polygonal rifling, wire-wound barrels, and the semi-submerged gun platform, none of which were finished.--Verbarson (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Early Life

"During this time, he also learned fluent French ..." You can learn French (or any language) and speak it fluently but you cannot *learn* fluent French.Haynesta (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Tunnelling?

It is appropriate for this article to use British English spelling, but not to enforce it when quoting quoting an American source. What spelling did The American Naturalist print? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 17:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Verbarson: We don't copyedit attributed quotations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I posted the comment because Denisarona may have done just that;[3] on the other hand they may have access to the original source and be correcting an incorrect quotation, so I refrained from 'uncorrecting' it. (That issue of the Naturalist does not appear in the online archive.) -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Robert Howlett_(Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_Standing_Before_the_Launching_Chains_of_the_Great_Eastern),_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_-_restoration1.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 4, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-03-04. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps those with better references than myself could clarify for this article (I think these claims are correct):

• The first steam ship to complete a transatlantic crossing SS Savannah
• The first steam ship to complete a transatlantic crossing under steam power SS Sirius (1837)
• The first steamship designed for the purpose to make the crossing SS Great Western
• The first propeller-driven steamship to make the crossing SS Great Britain

These may not all need to be mentioned in an article about Brunel, but his achievements do not need to be fudged or overstated.

(Edit) OK, the article makes it clearer than I thought; but the lede could do better.-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806–1859) was an English civil and mechanical engineer. The son of French engineer Marc Isambard Brunel, he worked under his father as an assistant engineer on the Thames Tunnel project for several years until he was seriously injured in a flooding incident. During his recuperation he began a design for a bridge in Bristol, which would later be completed as the Clifton Suspension Bridge. In 1833, Brunel was appointed chief engineer of the Great Western Railway, overseeing development of the main line from London to Bristol which was completed in 1841. Brunel's other achievements included the design of the first transatlantic steamship and dockyards. This 1857 photograph, titled Isambard Kingdom Brunel Standing Before the Launching Chains of the Great Eastern, was taken by Robert Howlett. It depicts Brunel standing before a drum of chain used during the launching of SS Great Eastern at Millwall in London; he carries a cigar case, and his boots and trousers are muddy.

Photograph credit: Robert Howlett; restored by Bammesk

Recently featured:

• Woman Suffrage Procession
• Romanesco broccoli
• Port Hills