Talk:Sydney Trains rolling stock

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Australia: Sydney / Transport Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Sydney Trains rolling stock is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Organisation[edit]

Move most of the fleet information from the main CityRail page here. Have only a brief note about operating sectors at the bottom of this page. List the numbers by type of each set and have a brief summary of each, with link to that set's main article. note the operating sectors for each set next to the set's own summary. General formatting and set-up of a links table for all rollingstock to put in the main CityRail and all rollingstock pages would also be good. SM247 04:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

The current article is OK, but I think a more suggestive/appropriate title would be "CityRail fleet"... Dysprosia 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a name change to CityRail fleet (or rollingstock, whatever is more consistent with naming policies and similar articles). The sectorisation bit is from before but with headings inserted and needs work still - maybe tomorrow. SM247 06:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dysprosia - change name. (JROBBO 07:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ppp.jpg[edit]

Image:Ppp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image replacement rationale[edit]

This is in reference to [1], wherein JRG asked 'what was wrong with the old image?'. I replaced the C set image because the old version is technically inferior [higher noise, poorer detail, smaller dimensions]. To confirm this, compare both images ([old], [new]). Accordingly, I have reverted to my edit. All that matters to me is that Wikimedia receives better quality media, regardless of who it comes from. — Alexanderino (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are treating the page like you own it - replacing every image surreptitiously with one of your own. There was nothing wrong with the old image. You should leave things alone if they don't need changing. JRG (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As stated earlier, Wikipedia only benefits from good quality, freely licenced images, and I do what I can to contribute to the cause. Yes, many of the images on this page [and other CityRail pages] are mine, but that is because I'm passionate about trains as well as photography and I am able to contribute in this regard. If a superior image replaces my own, I would neither be disheartened nor offended; at the end of the day, Wikipedia would be better for it, and that's all that matters.

On the other hand, your insinuations that I treat the page like my own property, and that I 'surreptitiously' inserted my photos are uncalled for. In each and every instance, I updated the page while logged in and clearly summarised my changes. Additionally, I have taken these photographs expending considerable time & effort, and sometimes attracting the ire of misinformed CityRail staff and transit officers. Can you overturn my assertion that the previous image was not technically superior [no offence to its creator]?

You also stated 'There was nothing wrong with the old image. You should leave things alone if they don't need changing'. Who determines when something is good enough? Even then, why would an improvement be unwelcome? Do you claim that Wikipedia would be better off not receiving newer contributions? Finally, what does anyone stand to gain from giving away their work for free?

I await your response. — Alexanderino (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I'm not getting into petty arguments as that is all WP seems to be characterised by these days. All I will say is that I don't mind you replacing photos per se, but what needs improving in terms of photos should be done by consensus, not just by someone going and replacing the photos on their sole opinion (it's just courtesy). At least put a note on the talk page saying you are going to do so, and move the old photo to the bottom to a gallery instead of simply deleting them from the page, unless the photo in question is so bad that the photo is unreadable or the subject is unrecognisable. What we need to do, though, is to get photos where we don't have ones already (and I appreciate the great work you have done in that respect) - not simply replacing ones we don't have already. I'd love some help on photos of railway stations for example where we don't have one already, for example. Let's expand, not just improve for the sake of it. JRG (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kiss my ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.2.186 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H Set similar to G Set?[edit]

"They (Oscars) are similar in design to the G Sets."

I tagged this as dubious; in what ways are they similar? None are apparent. Capdor (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

I'm having trouble navigating everything and getting it up to WP standards. There are a lot of bold things involved and links that could possibly be moved or changed. If anyone has ideas then feel free to help out! Dreambeaver (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S Set[edit]

Does anybody know why there isn't a section for the S set on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmacpherson (talk • contribs) 08:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]