Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Transport/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Melbourne railway lines

Many of the Melbourne railway line articles are a bit of a mess. There should only be one article for each railway line (as agreed in the recent North East railway line merge discussion), and one for each railway service. As it stands the lines of distinction are often blurred. For example, there is no such thing as the Craigieburn railway line. There is the Craigieburn line service much like there is the Albury V/Line rail service. These services primarily operate on the North East railway line as well as briefly on other lines on their way out of central Melbourne. To resolve the text on the physical railway line in the Craigieburn line article should be incorporated into the North East railway line, with the former rewritten to solely focus on the service. Same problem applies with the Cranbourne line, Pakenham line, Sunbury line and Werribee line articles.

A byproduct is that many Melbourne railway station articles have the line field in the infobox incorrectly populated with the service, that is already covered in the servcices field. Wantenline (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@NotOrrio and HoHo3143: You might be interested in reply to this, as you have been working on these articles. Steelkamp (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @ThylacineHunter: as we have had discussions on this in the past and came to a consensus but I'm not 100% sure where this is. We came to the conclusion that track and line articles should be merged into one another unless the track continues on after the end of the service. For example, it would be useless to have 2 articles for the Sandringham line, so its been done in one article. In comparison, the Craigieburn line ends and continues so there are more than 2 articles. The articles are already written in a way to primarily focus on the service. HoHo3143 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussions can be found User talk:ThylacineHunter/Archive 3#Track diagram table discussion and User:HoHo3143/Rebuilding the pages for metropolitan, regional, tourist, and interstate lines (and it's talk page) --ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM § Remove Sydney Metro

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM § Remove Sydney Metro. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Categorisation of historic services

What is the policy for data concerning a service that has since been split off into its own line, but in a historic context was part of a different line at the time being discussed? As a case study/example, this quote regarding Werribee (Melbourne) services "From Sat 9/3, extra Werribee services have been running on Saturday nights. The 6.25 pm (No.64) Werribee-Newport railcar, which formerly stabled at Newport until Sunday morning, now continues to Flinders St, arriving at 7.14pm. An extra Down (No.95) departs Flinders St at 8.00 pm stopping Spencer St, Footscray, Newport and all stations to Werribee, arriving 8.45 pm. It then departs Werribee at 9.05 pm stopping all stations to Newport where it connects with an Up suburban electric and stables until Sunday morning as before." - should this content go on the Warrnambool line page, the Geelong V/Line service page, the Werribee line page etc? Anothersignalman (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Anothersignalman (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why it would go on the Geelong V/Line page. This is referring to a suburban electric train right? I would put it on both the Warrnambool line page and the Werribee line page. On another note, I don't think this specific example is all that important to be included anywhere on Wikipedia. Minor timetable alterations are not really within the purview of Wikipedia, especially ones from 50 years ago. Steelkamp (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Steelkamp. The quote refers to what is now the electrified line, but about a decade before that happened, back when it was part of the Geelong/Warrnambool/etc service. To give another example, it's similar to how Sunbury services worked pre-electrification - would that go on the Sunbury line page, the Bendigo V/Line rail service page, and/or the Deniliquin railway line page? The same could be applied to the Pakenham corridor and probably a few others. I'd prefer to avoid putting the same content on multiple pages because it means later edits have to be applied to all of them, instead of just one location, so in the Werribee example I'm thinking the Warrnambool railway line page under a header for historic services, but the Werribee line page could have a link to the line page with caption "For services before 1983, see here" or something like that.

Re relevance, agreed the quote doesn't belong in Wiki on its own. I imagine the final use will be something like "...the span of services gradually increased over the decades" with about five Newsrails linked after that statement (where the changes aren't summarised by a single source), so people who want more detail can easily find it. The reference (not the content) might also be useful to demonstrate, say, that the local line had a mix of shuttle and through services, and/or that these were railcars rather than loco-hauled trips. This was just the first example of this sort of thing that I encountered, since NR 04/1974 was at the top of my to-do list. Anothersignalman (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Adjacent stations module for Metro Trains Melbourne

I made a WP:BOLD edit to the Adjacent stations module for Metro, simplifying it and bring it in line with the post-2018 plain blue signage by removing the thin white line on the infobox name formatting. See proposed change here.

Since the edit was reverted, I'm proposing it here for discussion. Any additional feedback would be valued. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 06:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any major difference between the two revisions. The code certainly looks cleaner with your revision. I don't personally mind either way. Pinging Purin128AL for their opinion. Steelkamp (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Flinders Street
PTV metropolitan and regional rail station

Flinders Street
PTV metropolitan and regional rail station

On the right is a direct comparison between the two versions. I agree the code does look cleaner in the newer version, however aesthetics wise I would want opinion from more users as without the white line the station name doesn't seem to be aligning centre vertically. If the consensus is to change it, we would also need to bring Module:Adjacent stations/Yarra Trams, Module:Adjacent stations/V/Line, and Module:Adjacent stations/PTV Bus to keep it consistent.

I also did a test on putting in line colours in the infobox, similar to recent platform signs. However it could be messy since some stations have many lines. Here is the page: Template:Melbourne Infobox station line. Purin128AL (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll also note that the white underline in the current code is only visible in the mobile version of Wikipedia, hence the seeming non-difference between the desktop versions. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 05:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)