Talk:VL class

Australia: Victoria / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal VL class 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: Locomotives Low‑importance

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 Locomotives task force.

Reverted merge[edit]

@Bagufleat: I noticed you reverted my merge of Avteq into this article. Can you please explain why? My reasoning for merging is that Avteq said the exact same information as here (and it is a really small stub), and it fails WP:NOTABILITY to warrant a separate article. Specifically the guideline that article topics require significant coverage and not merely a trivial mention at WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:Merging, the policy also allows uncontroversial merges to be boldly done. I thought it was pretty uncontroversial because of that. Fork99 (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look, I did not just revert the original article that had only one unreliable cite. It is a quite different article with five reliable cites. By comparison the VL class that it was redirected to is largely uncited with one WP:FANSITE cite (Vicsig) and one (CFCLA) that only confirms their existence and nothing else. If you still think it should be merged, please go through the formal merge request process. Bagufleat (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, thanks for expanding it then @Bagufleat, have a good rest of your day :) Fork99 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]