Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Transport/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Working on the assesment table

It appears that the project is almost ready to be moved into the mainspace apart from the article assessment. I will begin working on the assessment table if you want to help you can add onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Assessments#Grading Scheme. The main catergory for now will be "Australian Transport articles" NotOrrio (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As of right now i finished the rough version of the important and quality tables i have placed some placeholder articles for now if you do wish to change any please leave a reply here NotOrrio (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello

I was not aware of this talk page until today. Anyway, I've moved this Wikiproject from the draft space to the Wikipedia namespace. We have enough supporters and establishing this page is the first step listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject. Steelkamp (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have listed this project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Steelkamp (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Add yourself to Category:WikiProject Australian Transport members if you want to. Steelkamp (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Article assessment

Are we making our own template, {{WikiProject Australian Transport}}, or tying it into the WikiProject Australia one, {{{{WikiProject Australia|transport=yes}}, as is done with Wikiproject Australian maritime history? -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

we already have the draft for a seperate banner, so we're likely going to use it NotOrrio (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That being said, it would be strange to be basically be the only Wikiproject focusing on Australian content not to be integrated. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be best to tie it into the WikiProject Australia one like what ThylacineHunter says. Draft:Template:WikiProject Australian Transport is a sunk cost (and a pretty minor one at that), so our decision should not be based on that. Steelkamp (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@NotOrrio and ThylacineHunter: If you agree, I can start setting that up today or tomorrow. Steelkamp (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be very carefully considered in the strictest sense - if the precedent is there for an australian subsidiary project to be incorporated into the larger (as all the others have had) then I do not think that there is a need for extended consultation of others opinions, I have seen no understanding of project creation from most other editors involved - (if they wish to determine the outcome, it needs to be done with a 'case' argued with adequate reasoning), and basically going ahead with the processes of getting it up and running, is very important - it is not as easy as it looks. JarrahTree 09:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Future assessment subpages

When this proposed project get started, I'll set up some project assessment subpages like I did with these Victorian transport ones to allow dedicated discussions, to-do lists, example article layouts, etc. for each of the different transport types. One benefit is the ability to follow the discussions that are more relevant to each members particular interests (eg those only interested in aviation can easily ignore stuff only relating to trains). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The assessment subpages for Aviation, Ships, Train, & Tram sections are ready for use on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Assessments. Please feel free to start watching relevant topics to your interests and start filling them in with:

• |exist= with number of pages that exist
• |articles= with total number of pages there should be (if known)
• |detail= with how many are rated C-class or above
• |all= yes/no, all existing articles have an appropriate category and list
• |date= with the date last updated

I still need to finish setting up Infrastructure & Roads sections. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk page banners now working

And there we have it, the first article under this project. Template:WikiProject Australia now includes this project. It's now time to add the thousand+ articles under this project's scope. Steelkamp (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

1,000+ pages under this project's scope in less than 24 hours. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Named NSW TrainLink service articles

I’ve noticed a little inconsistency. There’s articles at Central West Express and Grafton Express which describe the current XPT service to Dubbo and Grafton, respectively, however none of the other XPT destinations/services have separate articles. I don’t think that these names are official, like for the Central West Express, it was a name for the former service that existed between 1941 and about the 1980s.

There’s also an Outback Xplorer article, but I think that one is fine because it has the word Xplorer in it. Thoughts? Fork99 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto for Northern Tablelands Express, which apparently still goes to Armidale and Moree. As I said, I believe somewhere like Canberra and Melbourne don’t have separate Xplorer or XPT service articles. Fork99 (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Simple reason, some services have never been named. The Melbourne XPT and Canberra Xplorers were resurrection of the Intercapital Daylight and Canberra Monaro Express, but the new services were never named. The Central West Express and Northern Tablelands Express names were still in use when the current stock took over.Tankgoldgirl (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tankgoldgirl: Are these names still in use in the 21st century though? Fork99 (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Why don't those other services have articles? Are they just covered on the articles for the railway lines? Could they potentially have articles created for them? Steelkamp (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t really think they have enough notability to warrant separate articles as those services are officially unnamed, there’s just too many destinations, and the information already exists on the respective type of train that services those destinations (New South Wales XPT, New South Wales Xplorer), and as Steelkamp said, yes, some info exists on the respective railway line article as well. In addition, at NSW TrainLink as well.

How NSW TrainLink refer to their services nowadays is by geographic region in relation to Sydney, e.g. Canberra/Griffith/Melbourne and associated coach services are labelled as “Southern NSW” region (see timetables at https://transportnsw.info/routes/nsw-trainlink). So maybe, there could be articles on those? But, to be honest, I think there’s enough info at the articles mentioned earlier.

My main concern at the moment is that the names for the ‘express’ services named in my original post are not in present use, officially or unofficially. I’ve also noticed similar articles at The Fish (train) and The Chips (train). However, Bathurst Bullet is okay, because 21st century government media releases seemingly like to use that name for PR (see https://transportnsw.info/plan/places-to-visit/bathurst-travel-guide and https://transport.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/media-releases/bathurst-bullet-celebrates-10th-anniversary). Fork99 (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like Central West Express and Grafton Express should be converted to past tense and then explain the situation on those articles. Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. The articles mentioned definitely still need improvement as to when the names officially fell out of use, and they all need more references. Fork99 (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Links to transport-related conventions/guidelines/etc

Just some stuff I found that we should incorporate (with any changes if necessary) into this WikiProject eventually:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations)

If there’s more, feel free to add them here for now. Fork99 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations) is eventually going to be replaced with the updatedand expanded Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Naming convention and guidelines. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Image of the WikiProject

The current image of the Wikiproject is HCMT, a Victorian train. Are there any other images that can better represent Australian Transport in a national sense? Purin128AL (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest Indian Pacific as it runs in 3 states and covers the length of Australia east-west. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

A pic of this would be good, Trans Australian Railway monument. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

[1] This would be a good option as well? Although it is The Ghan instead of the Indian Pacific. But anyway I would not use images of either Sydney or Melbourne transport due to the rivalry and potential edit war. Purin128AL (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I really like that image, but the main issue is, when put in a userbox, it becomes a orange-red blur that's really hard to understand at first glance. Does anyone have any other images that may work? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that on the assesment banner page as well we should probably use a close up shot instead for both such as this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rawlinna_(AU),_Indian_Pacific,_NR_Class_Locomotive_--_2019_--_0601.jpg (zoomed out version: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rawlinna_(AU),_Indian_Pacific,_NR_Class_Locomotive_--_2019_--_0597.jpg) NotOrrio (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added an image banner to the WikiProject Australian Transport pages hader that has 5 different images of the different transports (aviation, roads, shipping, trains, and trams). I wanted this to be more inclusive of the other methods of transport. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Transperth-related articles

Just thought I should let the project know that I've done an overhaul of Transperth-related articles today. (this has been sitting in my userspace sandboxes for months). I've created Buses in Perth (missing topic for ages) and overhauled Transperth and Transperth Train Operations. Those articles have been really quite bad for ages. I've also made a requested move of Transperth Train Operations to Railways in Perth, I would appreciate people voicing their opinions at that RM. Sometime later, I will get around to creating Ferries in Perth, but that has not yet happened. Steelkamp (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

South East Queensland rail article overlap

Queensland Rail, as the train operator for passenger trains in Queensland, naturally operates the Queensland Rail Citytrain network (separate article) in South East Queensland. But, there's also a separate article on Rail transport in South East Queensland. In a similar fashion to Transperth Train Operations' move proposal to Railways in Perth, I think that these two separate articles should be merged. Thoughts? Fork99 (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't started a formal merge proposal at Rail transport in South East Queensland yet, though. Plus, per the Transperth move, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney already do this. Fork99 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've always wondered why South East Queensland was separate from the rest of Queensland.

The only distinct region within a state that could be argued to be of enough difference to make a separate article are the isolated heavy duty railways in the Pilbara region, WA, as they are unconnected private railways that are not part of the general WA rail network. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure its South East Queensland because of the Gold Coast. Rail transport in South East Queensland seems to cover the Citytrain network, freight railways and even the G:link(?!). I think a merging of those two articles would be a good idea and a new article on freight railways in SEQ can be created, akin to Freight railways in Melbourne.

Whether Rail Transport in South East Queensland is merged into Queensland Rail Citytrain network or vice versa depends. Is Cityrail a well known brand in Brisbane? If so, merge into the Cityrail article. Steelkamp (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

While doing some light reading into this, I’ve found yet ANOTHER article at Rail network in South East Queensland. I don’t even know anymore, three articles to merge, how fun!

Some background info on why that article is called Citytrain, see this talk page discussion. The gist is:

• Citytrain is a formal name. I have no idea if it was ever used as a customer-facing brand.
• There's inconsistencies in customer information to whether it’s the Citytrain, City, or South East Queensland network.
• Citytrain is not currently used for any customer information, such as timetables, maps and websites.
• It’s almost akin to how Adelaide Metro and Transperth don’t have a formal commonly used brand name to distinguish their trains from other modes of transport.
• The article NSW TrainLink isn’t called NSW Trains, despite the latter being its legal business name, just as an example.

Regarding the potential freight railways article, maybe not? Just because I don’t think there’s enough info, and freight trains in the SEQ area aren’t as separate from passenger trains like in Melbourne or Sydney.

I really don’t know, but Rail network in South East Queensland has surely got to go. Maybe a master article at Rail transport in South East Queensland (absorbing the other two), following a similar style to Railways in Melbourne and Railways in Sydney? Maybe a move to Railways in South East Queensland if we want to maintain state consistency. Or maybe even, to maintain consistency with Rail transport in Australia, we could even move all of the city/regions ones to follow that style? Briefly mention G:link and historic tram networks, but better to probably just to link to the main articles like:

Main articles: G:link and Trams in Brisbane

Fork99 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, these pages are a mess and need fixing! Worth mentioning that "Rail transport in SEQ" was originally created as "Railways in Brisbane". There's also the Rail transport in Queensland article on top of the above articles.

I think it probably makes sense to stick to the division of "Railways in City" about the suburban/city network plus "Operator(s)" plus "Rail transport in state" for everything else.

For Queensland that'd be "Railways in Brisbane" or "Railways in SEQ", the QR article with relevant subheadings, then the "Rail transport in Queensland" article, with everything else deleted.

As I mentioned in another comment, I think saying "Melbourne rail network" might be a more descriptive/accurate title than "Railways in Melbourne" for each city's article, but that's probably a larger conversation as they'd all have to be changed at once. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have started a formal merge proposal, please see Talk:Rail transport in South East Queensland#Merge proposals. Fork99 (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Need to add a new class to Template:WikiProject Australia

See discussion: Template talk:WikiProject Australia#Future-Class -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Station importance ranking

When I originally added several stations on melbournes train network to this project i ranked most of them as low importance, however i did also rank a few major stations as mid important (mostly following the wikiproject melbourne ratings) and ranked Southern Cross and Flinders Street (and also Central in Sydney) as top importance, when I looked through the importance ratings of other stations in Australia almost every station was ranked low importance with just a few ranked mid importance and no stations ranked as high or top. I am wondering what should be done with the following stations in Melbourne as well as Central station in sydney. NotOrrio (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there are any stations in Australia that should be top importance. High importance should be the highest stations should go, and that would be only a few stations. The vast majority of stations should be low importance. Steelkamp (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the last assertion of low for the most - but considering the complexities of heritage/multiple issues of architecture/engineering and multiple forms of transport utilising - I suspect that the assertion of top is actually viable assessment of a few stations in Australia. JarrahTree 07:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Some railway housework to be done

I started a move proposal at Talk:Valley Heights Locomotive Depot Heritage Museum#Requested move 4 July 2023, please feel free to add your opinions there.

In addition, there is an article currently called Southern railway line which is in Queensland. I think the name is ambiguous, and should instead redirect to Southern Line (disambiguation), as Western railway line (the ambiguous name of another QLD line) already redirects to Western Line (disambiguation) instead of Western railway line, Queensland.

Let me know if I should change the name to Southern railway line, Queensland. I’d be willing to use AutoWikiBrowser/AWB to update the left behind broken wikilinks by this move thank you AWB gods for this wonderful tool Fork99 (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I already did something similar for Main Line railway, I thought the name was just too ambiguous and could refer to Mainlines (in general). That article already existed at Main Line railway, Queensland prior to my redirect target change of Main Line railway. Fork99 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Excessive redirects

In recent weeks an editor has been running around creating excessive redirects for Australian transport articles. For example, 24 at Sydney Trains M set including deliberate typographical errors. Redirects should exist for commonly searched terms or to point to specific sections of articles where a standalone article is not justified, but adding dozens of redirects for the same article with every capital letter, parenthesis and plural permutation is of no benefit and really just silly. Jeistyphade (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There’s a Wikipedia essay stating that redirects are cheap (which I subscribe to this viewpoint; see WP:Redirects are cheap). If you feel it’s excessive, please take them to Redirects for Discussion (RfD) at Wikipedia:RfD, or tag them with an appropriate CSD tag (of which I don’t believe any of my redirects qualify under any of the criteria for speedy deletion; if one of my redirects was something like MiLeNNiuM M SET, then yes, that would probably fall under CSD criterion WP:R3 (edited Fork99 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)). There’s an internal process of reviewing all new Wikipedia articles, including redirect pages, of which I’m not a part of since I’m not a new pages patroller, however I’ve had most of my redirects patrolled and approved by someone else. Fork99 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, I’ve probably contributed quite a bit to the new redirect patrol backlog, but other than for the Sydney/NSW Trains fleet, I’ve also created redirects for abbreviations and synonyms in general. Fork99 (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, in addition, some of the similarly styled redirects you’re talking about already existed before I even became an editor, I just thought it would not be fair if say T Set (CityRail) existed, but not A Set (CityRail). The general convention overseas seems to use parentheses instead of how we do it in Australia, which could cause confusion for any overseas reader. Fork99 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

“Homepage” of the project

I feel like Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport is quite long and cumbersome to read, I wonder how we could cut down on the length but keep all of the info? Like I wanted to see who our participants and the related projects are, but I had to scroll a bunch. In the meantime, I’ve added a table of contents. Fork99 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That's why I moved most sections to their own subpages transcluded sections of them onto the homepage. The more important sections are also listed in the header banner. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

indeed - what constitutes importance is interesting - the project has editors with a very skewed scope so far - to move beyond victorian trains and buses, maybe there might to be more reaching out perhaps to the other forms of transport enthusiasts - roads, queensland, aviation, tasmania, south australia, ships.... JarrahTree 01:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Links to discussions of interest

Links to discussions of interest that took place elsewhere not that long before this WikiProject was established in June 2023:

• Discussion about list of railway stations category names
• Discussion about improving state railway navboxes
• Discussion about railway rolling stock naming conventions

Feel free to add any others that might be of interest. Fork99 (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, if any of the above links don’t work in the future, please search the relevant talk page’s archives, and consider leaving a new link here too. Fork99 (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent discussion: User talk:Evad37/rater.js#Feature request: semi-automatically add particular project(s). Fork99 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Idea from the US that we could steal for locomotive rosters: Talk:EMD F40PH#Owners. Fork99 (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not saying that all current rosters should be removed, but for any particularly bad cases where the entire list is unreferenced. Fork99 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Scope of project

I disagree that Alstom and Bombardier Transportation fall under the scope of the project. These are large multinational companies that operate in 60+ countries. I think that only companies from Australia (such as UGL Rail) or Australian subdivisions of multinational companies should be under the scope of this project. Ping @ThylacineHunter: as the person who added those pages to the project. Steelkamp (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Between the 2 companies there are (at a quick glance):

• Flexity 2 - Adelaide trams
• Flexity Classic - Gold Coast trams, G-class Melbourne tram
• Flexity Swift - E-class Melbourne tram
• Alstom Citadis - Adelaide trams, Sydney trams, C-class Melbourne tram, C2-class Melbourne tram
• X'Trapolis - X'Trapolis 100, Transperth C-series train, X'Trapolis 2.0
• V/Line VLocity
• Comeng (train) - Alstom refurbishments
• Adelaide Metro A-City 4000 Class
• Interurban multiple unit (Qld)
• Suburban multiple unit (Qld)
• New Generation Rollingstock (Qld)
• Bombardier Transportation Australia Ltd – Dandenong, Victoria and Milton, Queensland
• Alstom in Australia

This is more products than some Australian only manufactures have made. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with keeping those companies under our scope. CRRC has made models of trains only for import into Australia, along with countless others like Siemens, and not to mention, almost every single foreign made steam and diesel locomotive which were custom-ordered for Australian operators. The only companies that should be under WikiProject Australia are ones founded here, or based here, or have a significant notable subsidiary here, as per @Steelkamp; such as Tulloch Limited, Downer EDI Rail, etc. Fork99 (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, would you put McDonald's under WikiProject Australia (or any country other than the US), even though they have a significant presence here? I don't think so. Fork99 (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'd would definitely look at putting McCafé under Australia. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting that McDonald's be tagged with WikiProject Australia? You'd have to do it for most of the 193/196 countries in the world then. Then, you'd need to do that for literally every significant transnational company in the world. McCafé, sure take that up with WikiProject Australia though. Fork99 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I only said possibly to McDonalds, as Australia started McCafé. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with not including ones like Siemens and others that built imported steam locos, but feel that Bombardier/Alstom had significant representation in Australia. These companies had workshops in Australia and employed Australians at these workshops (eg Bombardier in Dandenong, Alstom in Ballarat), technically Australian divisions of these companies. The X'Trapolis 2.0 are going to be manufacturer by Alstom but built at Ballarat. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, Alstom manufactures some of its trains in India, but it doesn't have WikiProject India tagged to it. Fork99 (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest making both Alstom Australia and Bombardier Australia pages (which will probably just get merged into the main pages anyway). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Dont be so optimistic !

If it was only so simple. In some cases, Australian firms/manufacturers are swallowed up by multinationals (in particular in mining the changes are numerous) and the Australian edition (to use a common term) becomes almost a footnote in the penultimate article about the larger firm. I think a good way of establishing provenance is the actual establishment of workshops/manufacturing locations in Australia. A physical reliable source. The historical record offers many more complex issues that can muddy the water, a lot. JarrahTree 07:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah examples would include Rio Tinto (corporation) (which is now based in London) and BHP, definitely multinational companies that would fall under WikiProject AU. Fork99 (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

So if we are including those who have workshops, then Alstrom (at the former Ballarat North Workshops) and Bombardier (workshop near Dandenong on the Cranbourne Line) both count. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

as long as there are reliable sources to clarify local verifiable activity JarrahTree 08:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you ask the parent project (WP:AU) and ask what they think, as ultimately if it's under our scope, it would be under theirs. I still maintain that I disagree that they should be under our scope. In the grand scheme of things, as Steelkamp said, they have operations worldwide, and there might be more significant/notable operations in other foreign countries that we're not aware of. I'm fairly certain that Alstom also manufactures trains in the US, such as the new Avelia Liberty trains. If so, under your logic, it would make more sense to prioritise adding those countries' projects to the relevant company over Australia's. Fork99 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets look at it this way: Right now, there are zero mentions of Australia on Alstom and three mentions of Australia on Bombardier Transportation. The latter article mentions at least 22 countries though. Should all 22+ of those countries have their Wikiproject's on that page's talk page? I don't think so. The prevailing standard is that multinational companies are not under the WikiProjects of every country they work in. Steelkamp (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Steelkamp re country tags - You wish - there are project taggers who would... given half the chance...

I would suggest we establish the criterion from the base of local operations, if the larger company articles dont mention oz - no big deal, either create oz operation articles, or leave alone... As for fork99 asking the awnb asking questions, up to you - the deafening silence does take a bit to deal with. JarrahTree 08:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fork99 I think it's up to other countries to decide whether or not they should be tagged on pages like Alstom, we are Australian Transport not World Transport or US Transport.

As for asking WP:AU, in relation to all Australia this would be of Low-importance (or even Bottom-importance if we used it) while for Aus transport it could be Mid-importance due to the multiple states involved.

I'd suggest taking a look at https://www.alstom.com/alstom-australia-and-new-zealand -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m merely using them as an example to back up my argument, I’m not speaking on behalf of anyone else. Fork99 (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

On a related note, Bombardier Aviation is now also in Melbourne (at Essendon Fields). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot posted above that is completely irrelevant. Each WikiProject is free to define its own scope, and if a different WikiProject says that such-an-article is within (or not within) their scope, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the same article is within the scope of WikiProject Australian Transport.

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport#Scope I see the sentence "Anything related to Transport in Australia is considered to be under the scope of the project." which is very broad, and also somewhat vague. It also does not require that a page fall within Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia#Project scope. If this is not tightened (or at least clarified), then really it is not a crime to add the project banner to a train manufacturer that just happens to sell its products to Australian railways. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your second opinion @Redrose64. Well then, we probably should tighten and/or clarify our scope. Our project does rely on WP:AU, i.e. it needs to be there in order to tag ‘AU Transport’ {{WikiProject Australia|transport=yes}}.

”Anything related to Transport”: have we defined what categories should be under our scope? Could list it out stating something like to make it clearer:

• Infrastructure
• Events, incidents, accidents
• History
• Operations (a bit vague, should clarify, maybe companies, brands, etc)
• Vehicles (also vague, should clarify to mean Australian-made, and/or only in use in Australia)
• Possibly important pioneers and/or engineers
• Associated modules, templates, etc
• Etc. Fork99 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear, why not look at the existing category trees that evolve from Transport in Australia - and the - Category:Transport_in_Australia. Very simple, and if there are editors or members of the community who have problems with a part or portion of what the collection contains, then maybe the debates could be about what to exclude from that point. The article and category have existed long before the project and as a result have evolved from a large sample of editors with an interest in the range of components JarrahTree 01:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Alstom Australia CREATED IN A HURRY TO KEEP Bagufleat HAPPY! ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That was a silly reason and way to create an article, particularly when you have already acknowledged such an article would probably just get merged into the main pages anyway. Articles should be created if there is enough content to justify rather than as a way to try and get around a WP:POLICY or include in a project.

In terms of the general conversation, precedent for large multinationals appears to be to include them only in the projects of their home country, Boeing, BP, Coca-Cola Google, KFC, PwC, Shell plc and Siemens being examples. If there is a separate article about an Australian subsidiary, e.g. Boeing Australia, Coca-Cola Amatil, Shell Australia, then it is appropriate to include them in the Australian project. Bagufleat (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Article count inconsistency

I have noticed:

• JL-Bot is saying there are 7 featured articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Assessments#Recognised content
• WP 1.0 bot also say 7 featured articles in the table on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Tools
• But Category:FA-Class Australian Transport articles only lists 2 featured articles

The 7 featured articles are all tagged correctly, and I've tried purging all relevant pages with no success. As a result, the summary count on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport#Recognised content is incorrect as are all the subcategories of Category:Australian Transport articles by quality. There is also a possibility that the subcategories of Category:Australian Transport articles by importance are also incorrect. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Update:

After purging individual talk pages of the articles, the FA-Class category has jumped to 4, still not up to the 7 it should be. It is not a case of these having just been added as Daglish railway station was added to this project over 2 weeks ago, and is sill awaiting being added to the category.

Also good articles count is out by 15. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

See bottom message at Template talk:WikiProject Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

TLDR: It has been fixed but will take a little while to update. Steelkamp (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for chasing that up, I wasn't sure if it was just this project, Australia or all projects. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter: For future ref, when inconsistencies in categorisation occur, purging won't help - you need to WP:NULLEDIT each of the pages that should be listed on the category page but isn't (and also null edit each of the pages that is listed on the category page but shouldn't be). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the Armadale and Thornlie lines article be split?

Just wondering, in regards to the Armadale and Thornlie lines article, should the Thornlie bit be split into its own article at some stage now as the Thornlie-Cockburn Link is getting closer to completion? I'm not sure what the latest completion date is (2024 or 2025?) but work is definitely progressing on the new line. For example, the spur and platform at Cockburn seem near completion, I noticed yesterday. What is the general thought on this? Calistemon (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about this last week actually, and I think they should be split. I was originally going to have a separate article on the Thornlie-Cockburn Link, and started a draft here, but I now think that the Thornlie-Cockburn Link and the Thornlie line should be on a new article on the Thornlie line, split off of the Armadale line. Steelkamp (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support this, similar branches in New Zealand aren’t part of the main line’s article, such as Melling Branch. Agree with adding the Thornlie–Cockburn link stuff in as well. Fork99 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've started a draft at Draft:Thornlie line. Steelkamp (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI the page moves have been made and the new Thornlie line article is now live. Steelkamp (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Rail trails template

I found this template Template:Rail Trails of Victoria, and it’s not very well categorised. Any ideas what categories it should be in? Fork99 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a little heads up about conflicts of interest (COI)

Hey everyone, I just wanna make sure everyone is aware of this.

When/if you’re keeping an eye on your watchlists, or just reading an article, please keep an eye out for anything that isn’t written from a neutral point of view or usernames, edit summaries and/or edits that imply a conflict of interest. I won’t name any organisations specifically, but there have been some articles that have been edited by users with clear conflicts of interest to articles about heritage railways, museums and other organisations/companies.

Pay attention to usernames that contain an organisation’s name, abbreviations, “marketing”, “management”, and particularly edit summaries/edits that refer to “themselves” as our, we, my, I, etc.

If you suspect someone has a COI, please review their edits, and also place the appropriate notice/warning on their user talk page. You can use Twinkle to do this. You can also report them to admins using the appropriate noticeboard if they continue being disruptive. Fork99 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Popular pages report is now up and running

This may be of interest to some people: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Popular pages is now up and running. It updates every month. Steelkamp (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this is really interesting data. What stands out immediately from a Victorian perspective is that the Metro Trains article has double the pageviews of the Railways in Melbourne article, despite the latter being the main article on the rail network. Which makes sense from a google perspective, as most people will probably search for "metro melbourne" or equivalent. It's inverted for trams, where Trams in Melbourne has a lot more views than Yarra Trams, which probably also reflects common terminology. I will take a look at the MTM article to perhaps improve the quality a bit. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Common names

As we are supposed to use WP:COMMONNAME for articles titles, all V/Line and Metro Trains Melbourne article titles are incorrect. The following service page would need renaming:

• Alamein railway line --> "Alamein line"
• Craigieburn railway line --> "Craigieburn line"
• Cranbourne railway line --> "Cranbourne line"
• Mernda railway line --> "Mernda line"
• Pakenham railway line --> "Pakenham line"
• Sunbury railway line --> "Sunbury line"
• Werribee railway line --> "Werribee line"
• Albury V/Line rail service --> "Albury line"
• Ballarat V/Line rail service --> "Ballarat line"
• Bendigo V/Line rail service --> "Bendigo line"
• Geelong V/Line rail service --> "Geelong line"
• Warrnambool V/Line rail service --> "Warrnambool line"
• Gippsland V/Line rail service --> "Gippsland line"
• Seymour V/Line rail service --> "Seymour line"

The future splits of service and line for the remaining V/Line (as being worked on by both @‎HoHo3143 and me) would be named:

• Ararat --> "Ararat line"
• Mildura railway line#Maryborough services --> "Maryborough line"
• Deniliquin railway line#Echuca services --> "Echuca line"
• Piangil railway line#Swan Hill services --> "Swan Hill line"

There is already a potential confusion with North East standard gauge railway line and North East railway line (the later is also known as the Albury railway line). As a result of these other changes, some confusion may arise from:

• Albury line & "Albury railway line" (currently named North East railway line)
• Warrnambool line & Port Fairy railway line (name already changed from its more common name "Warrnambool railway line")
• Gippsland line & Gippsland railway line (as already discussed as a name change)
• Echuca line & Deniliquin railway line (technically now more commonly known as "Echuca railway line")
• Swan Hill line & Piangil railway line (technically now more commonly known as "Swan Hill railway line")

In the case of the above 5, the line and service are too different to be included on the same article as they are with the list below.

The following are ok as they are joint line and service page and would only require "XXX line" to redirect to "XXX railway line":

• Belgrave railway line
• Flemington Racecourse railway line
• Frankston railway line
• Glen Waverley railway line
• Hurstbridge railway line
• Lilydale railway line
• Sandringham railway line
• Stony Point railway line
• Upfield railway line
• Williamstown railway line

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There may be some other railways lines in Victoria that are currently not using their WP:COMMONNAME, and I haven't even started looking into the other states yet. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

These are the other Victorian railway lines with now outdated common names that should also be changed:

• Patchewollock railway line -- > "Hopetoun railway line"
• Yaapeet railway line --> "Rainbow railway line"
• Crowes railway line --> "Beech Forest railway line"

ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly support renaming these articles as proposed. You can see my efforts to rename the Transperth lines at Talk:Joondalup line and I think the same should be applied to Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane. Steelkamp (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

For usage in other states: this map seems to show South East Queensland as using the X line naming scheme and this map shows Adelaide using the X line naming scheme. This naming scheme has another benefit too: conciseness. Often links to those pages are piped to make the link shorter anyway. Steelkamp (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the "X line" and "X railway line" distinction may be confusing and will seem inconsistent, particularly for metro as it's not very clear that "railway" should mean the track. I get that's what NSW does but I think it's confusing there too. Is there even a need to have separate articles for the track and lines? The two Gippsland articles, for example, don't seem that different and could be merged (with the former terminus discussed in the history section). Alternatively you could use a term like "rail corridor". At the least I think if you should move over all of those Metro lines to "X line" too. Gracchus250 (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and New South Wales all use this format of "X line" for the common name of a service (I was just noting the NSW articles have a capital "L" in the title).
2. As for combining articles, this will cause issues with Warrnambool line & Port Fairy railway line (which should be renamed to it's common name of "Warrnambool railway line")
   • The service (Warrnambool line) runs via the Deer Park–West Werribee railway line
   • The physical track (Warrnambool railway line) includes the Werribee to Little River section of track
3. The 2 Gippsland pages are still to be rewritten by @HoHo3143.
4. Using a term like "rail corridor" would go against WP:COMMONNAME, if we are going to go with ignoring common name policy, then a better name would be to go with my previous naming proposal of changing "Gippsland railway line" to "Orbost railway line".

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I support changing the articles to end with ...line as I agree with the above reasons. I'm currently working through the articles to bring them up to standard. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason that the Gippsland railway line article is named as such, is that as discussed in the recently closed RM, that is the the name that the line has consistently been known as irrespective of whether it terminated at Orbost or Bairnsdale. If there was no regional name and it was just known by where it terminated, then Orbost railway line would be a better title than Bairnsdale railway line. Appreciate that some would prefer that all lines were just named after their termini, but the reality is that some are and some just aren't. Bagufleat (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're changing some of the metro lines to "X line" then they should all be changed for consistency and for the same common-name reasons you state. It doesn't make sense to have a mix, consistency is important. "X railway line" should be reserved for when a separate article is needed for the track, which should only be when it's particularly justified (in my view it's not justified for Gippsland as there's no important difference, and the distinction in the Warrnambool line between service and track could easily be explained within the text of the article). This is a pretty big change so it would've been good to have started a discussion before initiating the moves. Gracchus250 (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

We need to decide which is higher importance, the physical railway line (titled "X railway line") or the service (titled "X line").

In Victoria there are 11 line/service joint articles (out of all 29 services):

• Alamein
• Belgrave
• Flemington Racecourse
• Frankston
• Glen Waverley
• Hurstbridge
• Lilydale
• Sandringham
• Stony Point
• Upfield
• Williamstown

If the 2 Gippsland articles are merged this will also become a line/service article. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gracchus250 @ThylacineHunter I think all of the articles should be X line as it's important for continuity. At the top of all articles, there should be a note that says either:

• "This article is about the service. For the article about the track, please visit..."
• "This article is about both the track and the service, due to the service running for the entire length of the track"

This would clear up any confusion whilst still having a streamlined naming system. HoHo3143 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, I think that's the best approach to keep consistency. I also think there can be small deviations between track and line and keep them in the same article, because creating a whole new article should really only be done where it's particularly needed. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. You might want to see what I've done at Airport line, Perth. The article goes over both the Airport line track and the Airport line service. I was careful to differentiate the two where possible by saying "Airport line service" and "Airport line branch". Steelkamp (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks yeah, I think that article looks great and is a good model. It covers the history, development, and clearly articulates the track and route. I think in most cases the lines and track are similar enough that we don't need separate articles and differences can be explained in relevant sections, particularly for metro where readers are very unlikely to care about the difference or be particularly searching for one or the other (I would think that Warrnambool and Gippsland could both be one article rather than split, as there's a lot of duplication, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it so if people think it's justified that's fine). Gracchus250 (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I've seen with some articles about Singapore MRT lines (where I've received heavy inspo for all of these article rebuilds) that under the infrastructure section they have a subheading for track. This could work if talking about the track is important. You can view my thinking for the layouts for track specific articles here. Let me know what you think of this structure (@ThylacineHunter has had a look and is implementing this on the Albury related articles) HoHo3143 (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Warrnambool & Port Fairy: I'd disagree with merging Port Fairy railway line into Warrnambool V/Line rail service, due to how Warrnambool (and Geelong) service no longer run the 32.7km from Footscray to Manor. A more logical merge would be Deer Park–West Werribee railway line and the Warrnambool service, although it would also need to be duplicated onto the Geelong V/Line rail service.

Geelong and Warrnambool: If Geelong and Warrnambool services are merged there would be 2 infoboxes (due to how much more frequent Geelong run) and 3 BSicon maps. If on top of that a physical track is merged into a joint service article, there would then be a total of 3 infoboxes and 3-4 BSicon maps; Geelong service, Warrnambool service, Warrnambool old stops (via Deer Park), & Port Fairy (if that is the merged one). This my cause the article to become too long and confusing. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Gippsland: As I've said before about Gippsland railway line & Gippsland V/Line rail service, wait until @HoHo3143 and I get to updating the Traralgon & Bairnsdale services and the Gippsland track. I possibly can accept having the 2 services as 1 article. But this all will depend on how long the rewritten articles will be. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter @Gracchus250 @Steelkamp sorry to have to get this conversation started again, but as many of my articles are being reviewed for GA status, its important to decide on the continuous naming. It's important that the articles share a cohesive naming system like ...line. This has been introduced on some articles and is a good start. However, for the remaining articles where track and a service is on the same article, the naming needs to be more cohesive. I've proposed previously that all Metro trains/Vline/others are renamed to end in ...line, with a note being attached to each article. This note would be either:

• "This article is about the Metro Trains Melbourne service. For the article about the track, please visit..."
• "This article is about both the track and the Metro Trains Melbourne service due to the service running for the entire length of the track"

As this is becoming important due to many articles being reviewed for GA status, what do you guys think of the proposal? HoHo3143 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I support moving all metropolitan train services to "X line" rather than "X railway line". It's the common name as per the government and the media. This week, I plan on starting an RM for the Adelaide Metro lines, and I would support if someone else were to do the remaining Melbourne lines. Steelkamp (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Steelkamp I've gone blank- what is an RM? Also, if everyone else (@Gracchus250 and @ThylacineHunter) agree with the naming, we should switch the articles over ASAP. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Requested move. Pages can also be moved using the move button but I generally think that requested moves are better. Steelkamp (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I fully support the idea. Consistency is important and "X line" is the common name so I support switching everything over. Gracchus250 (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with consistency.

So we are stating for Austrian joint service and line articles, we are to take the name of the service and the line ("X railway line") as a redirect. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

ive gone ahead and started move discussions for the rest on Glen Waverley railway line including the sunbury line which wasnt moved despite having an article about the physical track, feel free to express your opinion on moving them at Talk:Glen_Waverley_railway_line#Requested_move_10_August_2023 NotOrrio (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@NotOrrio thank you for doing this. Once a couple of people provide their support, we can go and change them over. When you go and change them over, make sure to also check the reminder of the articles for any mention of railway line or anything else that doesn't fit in the naming convention. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143: since this is a formal move request, someone uninvolved will automatically close the request once 7 days have passed since the request opened, and they’ll complete the moves on behalf of the proposer if they determine consensus to move. Also pretty sure that only someone who isn’t involved with the request and/or affected articles can move once a request is opened. People usually monitor the move request logs or whatever. See WP:RMCLOSE for more info. Fork99 (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fork99 right ok- thank you. I'm not overly familiar with moving of articles so thanks for clearing it up. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I have changed or requested a change for all the current Victorian ones except those that require further discussions as they will cause disambiguation issues:

• Albury V/Line rail service --> "Albury line"
• Gippsland V/Line rail service --> "Gippsland line"

--ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also reworded Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Naming convention and guidelines#Naming - services for use of WP:COMMONNAME

• NSW - Sydney trains, Intercity rail will all need renaming from "Xxx Line" to "Xxx line" (lowercase "l") to fix consistency issue.
• The only one to really go against common name is Vic trams. As the common name "route [NUMBER]", this will most likely require disambiguations for all routes. I propose that "Melbourne tram route [NUMBER]" be an allowable exception to defaulting an article name to the common name.

I hope to reword the "Naming - lines" section soon to focus it on the use of common name instead of the railways original naming patterns. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Port Fairy railway line also still needs changing to it's common name "Warrnambool railway line". -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is a policy that should very much be taken into account, but it is not the be all and end all. A degree of WP:COMMONSENSE should also be applied. Where a railway line is named after its terminus, and has had several over time, the article should be the named after the furthermost one. So the line that formerly extended to Port Fairy and now has been cut back to Warrnambool should be the Port Fairy railway line, with Warrnambool railway line, Geelong railway line and any other names it may be known as, as redirects.

Renaming articles just to follow the stylings of a transport agency is potentially going to cause more problems then it solves. Having Gippsland line as the name of the service article is going to cause confusion with the physical railway line article, Gippsland railway line. Whether the V/Line bit is needed is debatable, but it should include service, e.g. Gippsland line service, in the title to diffentiate it from the railway line.

Worth noting that MOS:TM that states "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". In other words we shouldn't be blindly trying to replicate whatever stylistic inflection the government agency or operator of the day uses, but naming articles with titles that are clear and unambiguous.

Some articles have recently renamed within an hour of this conversation being initiated, a request to revert has been made. If editors still wish to rename articles please go through the formal WP:RM process. But would suggest editors perhaps take their time to discuss the pros and cons here before taking that step. This doesn't need to be resolved today, there is WP:NORUSH. Bagufleat (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not just the "stylings of a transport agency". I have provided links to many independent sources on each of the requested moves to show that its not just transport agencies using the proposed names. Steelkamp (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Target audience?

After the above discussions, I'm wanting to question who is the target audience of these articles...

• Demographic?
  • General public (no real interest)
  • Slight interest in topic
  • Topic fans (eg Rail fans for rail articles)
• Where located?
  • World wide
  • Australia wide
  • State of the article concerned (eg Victorian related articles for Victorians)

Sure, if it's just world wide general public, then make these articles as basic as possible.
If these articles are being used by people with a slight interest in for example trains, then a modified basic summary list of sock would be useful (even if not 100% back up by a WP:RS).
But on the other hand, if they are for topic fans, the stock lists will need more details. The same is true for the infoboxes, how detailed should these things be? -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That is all so very very weird - there is, if you check it out, a very basic WP:ABOUT and WP:NOT - there is nothing about anything in the larger wikipedia scope that even considers such breakdown of the wikipedia reader.

Please try to get a handle on the fact that this is wikipedia - that requires wp:RS. IF you cannot handle that - then try to have someone walk you through your misinterpreation of wp:RS so the project can move on from this insidious bog. With WP:AGF. JarrahTree 04:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason I ask this is as follows...

Using Victorian Railways H class (1877) as example 1: Majority of the bits listed under "Specifications" are only really of interest to rail fans (in particular the ones in Victoria). On the other hand a person in USA with no particular interest in trains wouldn't be interested. But as this all comes from a WP:RS it is included.

Example 2 Freight Australia XR class: is now of no interest to the rail fan (due to Bagufleat's recent removal of the fleet list). Yet this article now conforms with WP:RS. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

second guessing who or not might be 'interested' is not what wikipedia is about, I dont know why interest has crept in - encyclopedia articles are not created for audiences... JarrahTree 04:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If not created for audiences, then why does Wikipedia exist??? It has to have some sort of an audience otherwise all the article page view daily averages would be nearer to 0 (which is not the case as proved by Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Popular pages) -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Just as an example of how to use outdenting when the indent thread gets too long such as through our previous discussions. Start again from 1 indent if you reply to this post. As I've said before in previous discussions, we should try and emulate how North American locomotive articles are written or potentially European/British articles. Some of them are rated as good articles, while catering for all sorts of readers who want to know more about the history, operations and other info of a particular type of rolling stock. Fork99 (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to ask if anybody has come across articles being submitted to WP:AFD where the primary rationale concerned the target audience? I can't think of any: if you do know of some, what was the outcome - delete, keep or something else? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no target audience per se. Articles are written to inform whoever wants to read them, not for a particular audience. As to what the breakdown of readership is, nobody will ever know and really it's irrelevant. But they are not meant to a rail fan's paradise with a need for every rivet counting detail. Articles should be written to reflect what relaible sources state, not whatever uncited text rail fans want to include.

The suggestion that Freight Australia XR class "is now of no interest to the rail fan" is on the assumption that all rail fans are concerned with serial numbers, liveries etc. Some probably are, but others would prefer an informative, reliable article. What I actually did, was make it more compliant with Wikipedia's policies. If the table could have been cited, then there would have been no problem in keeping it, but it wasn't, hence was removed. Bagufleat (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Locomotive class articles need a major major cleanup

Quite a lot of articles, e.g. UGL Rail C44aci, National Rail NR class and New South Wales 48 class locomotive, often have a lot of unsourced info and sometimes trivial info like what livery a loco is in.

I also have a feeling that the “model railways” sections of some articles like Victorian Railways T class#Model Railways are promotional in nature, as they basically promote buying a particular train model from a particular company, and thus I think is against Wikipedia’s policies on advertising.

I might start removing the model train stuff soon, but in the meantime, I think we should try and come up with a list of things that these sorts of articles should or shouldn’t include.

In North America, they don’t list individual locomotives in any sort of table on articles because this sort of info is often not published anywhere by reliable sources. And in fact, they don’t even list individual locomotives’ current owners; only their original owner, but I think that information is ok here as long it’s backed up with a citation. Fork99 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Very good points made - for the curious, imho, to glean from peers is always a better than 'come up with a list' practice - there could be a sort of competition to find the 'best' loco article in the Trains project (GA's and the like) to see what balance between the various elements of detail and sourcing might be relative to the information found - in English or Canadian locos for instance.

It is intriguing that model railway information has crept into actual articles about locos - any separation or removal is encouraged, in that it could be very confusing for readers to wonder what is going on. JarrahTree 08:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Fork. What an article should definitely not have is a giant list of each individual locomotive, especially an unsourced one. I've removed one such list from National Rail NR class. I've also removed the liveries section for being entirely sourced to unreliable sources. Looking at specifically that article, I think the "Model railways" section should also be removed as being thoroughly unimportant, but will wait for further discussion. Steelkamp (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: I think just go ahead and remove the model sections, the citations lead directly to pages where you can buy model trains, if that's not promotional, I don't know what is! Fork99 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, being of interest to only a small number of people, the model railway sections would be better represented on a Fandom.com type page for that sort of topic. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Adelaide Metro lines requested move

I have requested a move of the lines for the Adelaide Metro. You can comment on the RM at Talk:Gawler railway line#Requested move 18 August 2023 Steelkamp (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing physical observations

@Fork99, you have recently tagged "Status tables / Fleet lists" sections on rolling stock pages as "no sources". Most of these are from physical sightings (especially things like liveries).

I have been wondering for a while now, how do we cite something we physically go and see?

Another instance of needing to cite a physical observation is on Eaglehawk–Inglewood railway line... "several sections of track, which had not been repaired as of July 2018." -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

If you don't understand WP:OR by now, it's hard to know where to go on this - you need to work hard to work around finding WP:RS or otherwise it is leaving it all open to non involved external editors to wander in for the slaughter... JarrahTree 13:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't think liveries are important info to put on Wikipedia in my opinion. If you want that sort of info, Vicsig or similar enthusiast sites will have it. Actually to be honest I'm not sure if Vicsig is technically a reliable source; is it self-published by someone? See the discussion right above this one for more discussion. I think we should try and emulate the North American style a bit more for loco articles. Fork99 (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Vicsig is definitely not a reliable source. It is a self published WP:FANSITE. We have no idea who created it and they certainly don't fall under the exceptions listed at WP:FANSITE for "recognised authorities".

https://danielbowen.com/ is more borderline. Daniel Bowen has a Wikipedia page and could be considered a recognised authority for his role at the PTUA. Steelkamp (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with WP:OR is, 80% of rail information in Victoria after the 1980's is mostly OR. After the privatisation of the railways, the non government companies weren't as interested in publishing the information. Under WP:OR things like Newsrail could possibly be considered as original research, due to the fact it's content is written by general train fans (much like me editing on here). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I'd say published magazines like Newsrail, Motive Power, etc are passable as possibly reliable sources since they publish them to make money. Original research just entails that there aren't published reliable sources about said info. I'd say a magazine issue with a proper ISSN number is published, reliability on the other hand is debatable. Fork99 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. That magazine looks likely to be an acceptable source. I haven't looked too close at this specific case, but the railway historical society would presumably have a committee and multiple people looking over the book before it was published. I would trust things that come from a historical society more than I would from a website that is run by just a single person or a small group of people.

Are there any books published on the subject of Victorian railways? In WA, we have Marble Bar to Mandurah : a history of passenger rail services in Western Australia and some other books. Books are usually acceptable sources because its a much higher effort to publish a book than it is to make a website. Steelkamp (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Half of the Newsrail references come from a section in it titled "Observations".

Also Newsrail was originally published by the Australian Railway Historical Society, who did most of the sourcing of information themselves. At some point they changed their format to information sourced from railfans. I'm unsure how it is now run since changing hands from the ARHS to Victorian Rail Publishing. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Victorian Rail Publishing a division of the now Newport Railway Museum? Fork99 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe so. The museum is volunteer run , I'm unsure if the Newsrail is also volunteer run. If it is, they may not have someone "employed" as a fact checker and rely on the honesty of the contributors (which would therefore bring into question is it OR? is it RS?). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Newsrail is not OR - getting all 'volunteer' things mixed up doesnt help. It is a published document/magazine JarrahTree 01:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter: Agreed with Jarrah, a newspaper by your logic would be original research then, because they’re based on the observations of a journalist. It’s only because they publish it somewhere as part of their job, then the source has a receptive audience who expect factual information, then that establishes the reliability of what they’re saying. Fork99 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok.

On a slightly different topic, what about OR in relation to rolling stock ownership...

• Most of the listed owners are all taken from physical observation (half the time from which company livery it is in). This will also cause an issue on those companies articles (eg SSR - last reference from 2014 and also from VicSig, PN - unreferenced)
• What about tourist railway stock lists? Can you find me a RS reference for Yarra Valley Railway#Rollingstock? It's 100% form observations from people physically going there and taking a list of what is there.
• What about noting things like "Stored", "Operational", "Under Restoration", and "Scrapped"? Again the majority of this is coming from physical observations and non-RS fansites. So according to not using OR and only using RS, the 5 Victorian Railways J class (1859) are not scrapped, even though not a single person has seen them since about 1917.
• Or even what gauge some rolling stock is on?

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter:

• 1. Hence why in North America, they only list the original owner in fleet tables. However, I think there can be precedence for listing instances of ownership transferring IF a citation is provided; best probably provided in prose form. An example article we probably could use as a model for our articles is EMD F40PH, which is listed as a good article.

Example of text we could "steal" (I mean use as a guiding model):

Three ex-Amtrak F40PHs have been preserved: No. 231 is owned by Dynamic Rail Preservation in Boulder City, Nevada, No. 281 is at the California State Railroad Museum, and No. 307 is at the North Carolina Transportation Museum. Coaster donated two of its F40PHM-2C locomotives that were retired on February 8, 2021; 2103 was donated to the Pacific Southwest Railway Museum, and 2105 to the Southern California Railway Museum.

One unit, 450, was acquired by Western Maryland Scenic Railroad in 2018.

Another example from EMD F59PH:

GO Transit began retiring its F59PH locomotives in 2008 in favor of newer MPI MPXpress locomotives. Most were purchased by other operators including Exo (10 locomotives), Metra (3), NCDOT (11) for use on the Piedmont, and Trinity Railway Express (7). Five of the NCDOT units were rebuilt...

Seven Metrolink units were rebuilt as F59PHR. The non-rebuilt Metrolink locomotives were retired by 2020. Five of those were purchased by NCDOT in 2018.

Some units are still in service with the original owners, while others have been retired. The 21 ex-Amtrak units were sold to Metra in 2018.

• 2. A primary source is better than no cited source.
• 3. Some of those parameters are quite irrelevant for Wikipedia, there's a guideline/policy that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and an associated essay WP:TOOMUCH; listing every single minute detail of a particular loco is a bit too much I think.
• 4. See point 3. It can still be stated for example that in general, V/Line N class or V/Line G class locos can be found on both standard and broad gauge. Or: that historically (be more specific than this), N class locomotives ran the service between Melbourne and Albury. Or: Victorian Railways C class (diesel) were originally on broad gauge until DATE, when they were converted to standard gauge (if necessary, be more specific with the dates and locos involved). Victorian Railways sold units NUMBER to WHOEVER, etc etc. Fork99 (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that according to WP:5P5... sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions (WP:IAR). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF - Rubbish - find the WP:RS and stop trying to bend rules for this project - find the books or the magazines, drop the fixation with volunteers which is a red herring, and if you dont actually have the magazines or books yourself, seek out people who have access to them, and seek help... JarrahTree 07:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Personal, or physical, observations have always been considered as unreliable and always will. Editors should focus on writing articles to comply with policies rather than trying to find excuses to get around them. Uncited or that only back by unreliable resources will inevitably end up being removed. Bagufleat (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@JarrahTree, I'm a railway historian in Victoria, I'm a go to person for information for a few of the tourist railways. I have a vast array of Victorian railway related books and magazines. I know that over half of information after the 1980's is not supported by WP:RS (according to Wikipedia's standards of RS). There may be some information located in the railway archives, but that is NOT accessible to the public. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I am very very sorry to disappoint you but what you have created in your mind about WP:RS is in all probability too finely tuned and harsh - if it has been published at some point and was at some stage in the state library of victoria or national library of australia (even in trove perhaps) it is in all likelihood a reliable source by the necessary requirements. what you assert as being not publicly accessible is another matter - in some cases some people have digitised material and put online - materials that otherwise in the past might have been considered 'internal documents' have become in effect published materials - the distinction between what might be publicly unavailable (which has been checked carefully on the internet and trove) and materials formerly considered unavailable ( the whole 100 years + of weekly notices in western australia were often considered 'internal' like that, but they are in effect due to digitisation now published public documents despite the former status ). If you still struggle with the determination of the Wp:RS issue, it is best that you (and or others) make an effort to create a sub page to the project where series/journals/magazines/regular published items can be discussed imho - as it is enough to take up considerable space if it keeps going this way, and gets in the way of editing time, that is for sure. JarrahTree 04:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

So if only relying on WP:RS (and no WP:OR), Tait (train) 1364M (364M) is still located at Yarra Valley Railway (YVR), even though it was scrapped about 2014. I know there is a RS somewhere that stated it was bought by and transferred to the YVR, but I personally know that there is no RS for it being scrapped. I have contacted various people (including YVR members) to try and ascertain if it still exists, as there has been no mention of it for a few years, and technically the year 2014 is OR.

What is the correct process here? Do we say no OR and incorrectly list 1364M as still existing at YVR? Or do we use common sense and accept a slight bit of OR and have a factually correct article? -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

On another point, under WP:RS we can't accept Facebook, Vicsig, etc. I propose that the 224 scrapped Comeng (train) carriages be relisted as NOT scrapped and that all 570 are still officially "in service" with Metro Trains Melbourne even though there are Facebook posts (WP:UGC) evidence to the contrary. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A quick Google search turned up a bunch of reliable sources for this. See [2] [3] [4] [5]. Steelkamp (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Steelkamp,

• Ref 1 - doesn't state the number scrapped (or even if any have started to be scrapped) just "gradually replacing the long-serving Comeng trains"
• Ref 2 - doesn't state the number scrapped (or even if any have started to be scrapped) just "progressively replace Melbourne’s Comeng fleet"
• Ref 3 - Ok, but questionable under (WP:UGC)
• Ref 4 - does it state the number scrapped?? Also, it will only be accurate to 13 June 2022 (some were scrapped after that date)

Upon further rereading of WP:RS, I'd start to question even using Newsrail, as it is technically WP:RS/SPS. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there doesn't exist a source that says the up-to-date number of Comeng's that have been scrapped. This doesn't make this a situation where we have to say all 570 are still in service. We write what we can on Wikipedia articles using the reliable sources we have available. Steelkamp (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If a cite cannot be found stating exactly how many have been scrapped, then don't include it, or write at a higher level based on what cites state. There are cites that state scrapping has commenced, that they are not up to the minute accurate in terms of exact numbers is unlikely to be of much concern to he majority of readers.

As to this rubbish that Newsrail is unreliable, yes it most likely does rely on volunteer contributions, but is a registered publication with an editor who will be in a position to weed out fictious submissions. If Newsrail was to be considered unreliable, then the same would apply to all of these rail magazines.

As it stands the various fansites and social media platforms quoted in this discussion are not reliable sources, and unless there is a change in Wikipedia policy, never will be considered as such. Bagufleat (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagufleat, I realise Newsrail in a published source, but it was originally self published (ARHS)...

• Upon being directed to reread WP:RS, I'm now stating that technically Newsrail comes under WP:RS/SPS / WP:SPS (at least the ones published by the ARHS) and as such, brings into question its reliability.
• But if you state that, even though it is self published, it counts as a reliable independent publication, then according to WP:EXPERTSPS, anyone who is a self-published source, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable independent publications (in this case Newsrail), may be considered reliable. If so, Vicsig is listed in multiple editions of Newsrail as a contributor, therefore Newsrail can be considered as a RS. --

ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

JarrahTree is right. Physical sightings are 100% considered original research. Always defer to reliable sources, and anything not found within reliable sources should not be on Wikipedia. Steelkamp (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

As for WP:RS, all of Freight Australia XR class is sourced form 3 "fansites" (Mark Bau's VR website, Railpage, & Vicsig). Freight Australia (as a private company) is not too open about sharing company information. What do we do here? delete all reference to the locomotive class? -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

NO - try finding published sources, an have patience - as most editors here seem not to have claimed access to sets of published magazines or books - it might take time for an ed with access to appropriate source material - that is not an excuse to start removing OR just yet. JarrahTree 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have access to an e-book published by ARHS NSW called A Guide to Australasian Locomotion 2020 which might help. Email me and I might be able to send you some sneaky photos. Fork99 (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Motive Power magazine might help too, I don't have any issues from before 2022 though. Fork99 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The way the speculation is going on here - maybe a separate transport project sub page should have a proscriptive list of NOT a reliable source vs RS, to be collaboratively .

Rather than the rabbit hole of reasoning that a particular source might be suspect, it is much better that a non-eternally online editor who has access to the magazines published that counteract the problem can assist with

Maybe a project for this project is to find someone with access to the magazines and books that can verify the existence of the at risk locomotives (with only fansite refs to date) JarrahTree 01:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

In a similar vein to all this, Transdev John Holland, a bus company in Sydney had (I just removed it) a fleet table list of the types of buses it runs. I’m sure there’s more articles similar to this one. These sorts of articles seem to rely on fleetlists.busaustralia.com for the types of buses a particular company operates, which definitely isn’t a reliable source either. Probably should try and emulate the writing style of something like Swan Transit, references on the other hand, sigh and shrug... Fork99 (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Also by the way as a little PSA: we should use Template:Outdent

Which you can use instead of indenting your talk post after the last one when the indent thread gets too long and hard to read. If you decide the thread is too indented, you simply put the outdent template before your post, and start the indents again from 0 colons, then 1 colon, and so on. Fork99 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

This indent doesn't work if you are using the "Reply" link. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to come to terms with the fact that Newsrail has never been self published. It has always been published by an organisation with an editor, originally the Australian Railway Historical Society and now Victorian Rail Publishing, in the same way that the Herald Sun is published by News Corp Australia. Whether the editor is paid or does the job in a volunteer capacity is irrelevant. Despite this, I'm sure some incorrect facts have made their way into Newsrail, as they do with all publications, but with a couple of exceptions published works are considered generally reliable, fansites are not. Bagufleat (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagufleat, taken from [worldcat.org - Newsrail]...

Author: Australian Railway Historical Society Victorian Division
Publisher: Australian Railway Historical Society, Victorian Division

Proof that Newsrail pre May 2020 was self published. Ok some articles are written by separate named authors, but general sections (eg news, workings, etc) that are often referenced on Wikipedia have no named author, and are therefore SP. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Going back to the topic of citing physical observations, does a photograph count as reliable?

On Victorian Railways A2 class#Preservation, "A2996 is preserved in Victorian regional city of Echuca" (un-sourced, I know a fan site that lits this, but it is not a RS), but to the right of the statement there is a picture of A2 996 (I know the caption needs improving). Is there any precedent to physical observations being backed up with photographic evidence? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThylacineHunter (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter: As I’ve said in another discussion somewhere else on this page, I have access to an e-book called “A guide to Australasian Locomotion 2020 edition” by Chris Walters (ISBN: 9780909650063); on page 259, it states that A2 996 is on display at Echuca Wharf. Fork99 (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I am sure that some things like the example I used actually do has a RS somewhere but there are also some that don't. I wasn't going to spend hours searching through everything just to find an example to use in this question. It was the first I thought of off the top of my head.

Other instances of where a photo could be a potential for citing would be things like stations. Things like: open stations - accessible status, etc; closed stations - what remains (eg. building, platform, no trace), etc. Many former station articles say something like "today little remains of the former station" or "the site of the station can still be seen". -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Photos can be faked. Here is one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64, I am aware photos can be faked, but on a similar line, a published book can have fake information and yet be listed as a RS. If a photo is correctly captioned, of an object or location, why can't I'd be used to cite? -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

An author can only be a person, the Australian Railway Historical Society is an organisation. Also periodicals don't have a singular author, they have an editor. So in stating that the Australian Railway Historical Society is the author of Newsrail, WorldCat is incorrect on two fronts and offers no proof that Newsrail was self published.

Just because a particular bit of text is not credited to an author, does not make it self published. There is an editor, or possibly sub-editor for that particular section, who will exert a degree of control.

Clearly there is still some confusion as why self published cites are considered original research while published cites are not. I will attempt to illustrate with this example.

If I were to write an article on the Victorian Railways A2 class and put it up on a website that I controlled or a form of social media that has no form of editorial control, this would be considered self published. If I were to submit the exact same article to Newsrail and it were published, then it would not be considered self published, and would qualify as a reliable source.

This is because Newsrail will have editorial controls in place, not fool proof, but at least it is a level of control. If the editor has a reasonable knowledge of the subject, he will sense check the article. If on a subject he doesn’t have much knowledge on, he will have contacts that he will be able to pass it on to for their opinion.

If at the end of that process there are some items that the editor is uncomfortable with, he will come back to me for clarification. I will then either satisfy his queries, or if not he will only agree to publish with the disputed parts removed, or decide not to publish at all.

Regards the A2 996 issue, its status as preserved at Echuca is confirmed by the Oberg cite used in other parts of the article. Article has been updated accordingly. Finding a reliable source is the way to fix such problems, not trying to find ways to get around policy. Bagufleat (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi all, Oakleigh railway station is up for GA. I completed the review, but put it up for a second opinion. Primary sources are heavily relied on, and I want someone familiar with train articles to review and assess whether this constitutes original research. I feel that for train stations, more reliance on primary sources is acceptable due to the very uncontroversial nature of the content and the lack of secondary sources available. Most claims are quite obvious. Just looking for a second view. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Steelkamp (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Title of Travelling Post Office, Queensland

I’ve started a discussion at WikiProject Australia about the title of Travelling Post Office, Queensland. Please comment there rather than here, thanks! Fork99 (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sydney Metro lines/services

As the central place for this sort of discussion now, the big things I want to point out are, and that consensus should be achieved for:

• Bankstown Line describes the service that Sydney Trains runs prior to metro conversion, as of writing.
• Bankstown railway line describes the physical railway line that the current Sydney Trains service runs on. Once conversion is complete, it should become an article similar to Epping to Chatswood rail link.
• The conversion of the railway line under Sydney Metro City & Southwest is a government project, and should not be confused with or construed as a railway line or service, similar to Sydney Metro Northwest, Sydney Metro West, Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport etc.
• However as of writing, we still don't know how the government will brand the metro services/line once the next stages towards Sydenham/Bankstown open. I do believe that services will run end to end between Tallawong and Bankstown though (and possibly beyond those points too in the distant future).
• Metro North West Line already exists to describe the line and the service between Tallawong and Chatswood. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we won't and shouldn't make any predictions in the article/main namespace, however I think four options are possible:

1. Metro North West Line is moved to a new title reflecting a unified entire line and service under a new name. Probably doesn't make sense to keep the old name logically on the government's part, but you never know with the people in charge!
2. Metro North West Line remains, with a new article(s) describing however the multiple other line/service name(s) are branded. In a similar fashion to how Joondalup line trains instantly become Mandurah line trains when travelling through Perth CBD or a Sydney T8 train into a T2 train in the City Circle.
3. Bankstown Line describes both the historic Sydney Trains service and the metro service if the line/service (or part of) were to adopt this name.
4. Something else entirely I haven't thought of.

• Future metro lines/services should also follow the same logic; project articles should be distinct from the line/service, unless consensus/notability overrides this to merge the relevant articles. Fork99 (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to decide which of those four options to go with at this stage. We just have to wait to see what the government decides on. The current set up seems alright for the time being though. We should have consistency on a city-by-city basis. Sydney is the only Australian city where there is a large difference between lines and services, which means the Wikipedia pages may be different from other Australian cities, but that is how it is.

I can imagine a scenario where one day, the government reorganises the Transperth services, to merge the Joondalup and Mandurah lines and merge the Fremantle and Midland lines. This would probably result in a separation between the lines and services articles, leaving Joondalup line and Mandurah line as distinct articles from the service running along those lines. Steelkamp (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Tables

Although it was loosely touched on in a different section above, many rolling stock articles have tables, but few are properly cited. Point in case being Freight Australia XR class that had one, but it was never cited. After being removed as part of an overall rewriting of the article, it has been reinstated using the dates from specific photos from Vicsig. This isn't really the way to cite a table, Vicsig is a self published source and thus not reliable. The argument trotted out that all other locomotive articles have tables is weak. Not suggesting an immediate cull, but these tables need to be either properly cited or removed, as it stands they have largely been built up with original research. Bagufleat (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aulj7: for your interest. Fork99 (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This is resolved right? Those tables should definitely not be there. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a proper argument, and Vicsig is not a reliable source. I have my doubts to whether those tables belong on Wikipedia even if they were sourced properly. Steelkamp (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Improving FA-Class Australian Transport articles

I think we should make a concerted effort to ensure the Featured Articles in this project are up to the modern-day FA standard. There are 7 Category:FA-Class Australian Transport articles. They are as follows:

• Airport Central railway station. Promoted in 2023. No issues
• Daglish railway station. Promoted in 2022. No issues, although this will have to be updated after the Morley–Ellenbrook line opens.
• Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line. Promoted in 2007. This articles is at risk. There were some discussions on the article's talk page. Some recent changes such as Special:Diff/1167668138 need to be looked at. There are parts which have no inline citations. Someone from Sydney would need to look at it to make sure the history and metro/light rail proposals are up to date. Fork99, are you up to this?
• Forrest Highway. Promoted in 2015. FA standards back then were similar to FA standards today. The main worry is parts that are not up to date. There are a few things on that article that need to be updated, but it is mostly fine. I can take care of this.
• Great Eastern Highway. Promoted in 2014. FA standards back then were similar to FA standards today. Only thing is making sure the history is up to date for more recent road works. The future needs to be updated as well, because there are currently plans to build the "orange route" somewhat soon. I can take care of this.
• Kwinana Freeway. Promoted in 2013. Again, promoted at a time when FA standards were similar to today. Main concern is modern upgrades to the freeway, such as the "smart freeway" system. I can take care of this.
• O-Bahn Busway. Promoted in 2006 and underwent a review in 2016. Article looks fine at first glance, although I can take a deeper look, unless someone else wants to.

That's all the Featured Articles. No Featured Lists under this project. There are some Featured Pictures, although I'm not qualified to assess those. I might do the same to all our older good articles too. Steelkamp (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh my, I am not going to look through the public timetable for the Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line, we don’t have the same simple A, B, C or whatever system to differentiate stopping patterns like you do in Perth @Steelkamp. I don’t live or use that line often, so I’m not personally aware of all the stopping patterns, but if the stopping patterns are relatively simple, we can probably retain the information in one way or another, but probably not like that.

From memory, I am aware of an all stops between Bondi and Cronulla, and an express pattern between Bondi and Waterfall, and some services from the city short turn at Hurstville, but there may be other patterns depending on the day or time of day, or others I don’t know about.

I am willing to help cite and verify the history and proposals stuff, however I don’t have access to any offline sources regarding this line. Fork99 (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Please revert any edits regarding a rumoured transfer of NSW TrainLink operations into Sydney Trains

Please revert any edits you see if anything related to NSW TrainLink say something along the lines of “it will be transferred over to Sydney Trains soon”, per WP:CRYSTALBALL and no reliably sourced citations. Apply this logic for all articles and topics you watch/read. Thanks to @Nick Mitchell 98 for pointing this out in Special:Diff/1172926552! Fork99 (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

New featured list candidate

For those who might be interested, List of Sydney Metro stations is a featured list candidate at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sydney Metro stations/archive1. Steelkamp (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sydney/NSW station article leads

I propose a set of standards for how Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink intercity station article leads should be written in terms of mentioning their services/lines.

• There’s an inconsistency in most station articles between whether it is “Line” or “line”. Over time, this should be corrected so that “Lines” describe services, and “lines” describe the physical railway line. This is slightly different to how the other Australian cities do it, but it is what it is, and shouldn’t change without broader consensus. I believe it is that way because official Transport for NSW sources use Line to describe their services.

• • For example, correct “Main Northern Line” to “Main Northern (railway) line” and correct “Airport & South line” to “Airport & South Line”.

• Another question that should be raised is: should the service line numbers (i.e. T1, T2, etc) be mentioned in each station’s lead alongside the services that station has? This is because some stations mention them, while others don’t, i.e. should it be “Airport & South Line” or “T8 Airport & South Line”?

• Ensure that Lines and lines that share the same name are correctly disambiguated.

I’m from Sydney, and the line numbers are extensively used throughout the system. We should agree on a particular set of standards on how to implement these changes as it will also make it easier to change in the future, should any of the service names change, for example (something AWB can fix relatively easily). Fork99 (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Re Line vs line, is there an international standard for other Wiki projects that we can adopt? Re name vs number, a quick check shows that the New York system uses numbers/letters without associated place names, inverse of London which has names only; seems the path forward might be based on how the average potential article reader is going to start looking for the information, so some sort of weighting for tourists vs locals vs railfans would be part of the decision process. Alternatively, keep the existing pages, and add redirect pages from "NSW T8", or viceversa, cut all content across to new pages with old pages kept as redirects? Anothersignalman (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Various items from archived discussions

Hi all, sorry I missed the older discussions, I've been busy with work. I'm not in a position to contribute regularly at the moment, but I just noticed some discussion in the archive related to some of my previous contributions, so figured I should record my thoughts now. I've skimmed some of the relevant Wiki policies as a refresher but I've come up hard against those in the past - usually but not always WP:RS. My understanding is that because this is a sub-project, we are able to communally discuss and adapt the standard Wikipedia policies if necessary, so that's the framework I'm using, though I can't promise that I'll have time to come back to this in the foreseeable future.

• Target audience / model railway sections - when I was writing the Victorian Railways rolling stock articles, my main targets were historians and enthusiasts. That's why I included the more detailed information, and the model railway information; though I set a goal of minimising the impact of the latter to avoid interrupting the flow of each article. It certainly isn't relevant to every reader, but as noted in the thread, WP:NOT doesn't have a threshold for inclusion. At a guess, I'd say that perhaps a tenth of all readers of these articles (not a tenth of all page visits), who get beyond the first few paragraphs, would be interested in the more intricate detail, and therefore the content should take up no more than a tenth of the article length. Or, if that isn't enough space, a separate page could be created with a link provided on the main page. Minimising the impact is why I placed the information at the end of each section (like an appendix) and, in the more recently created examples, used collapsible tables to further avoid distraction. Examples of people who could or would want that content could include:

1. Someone who has read the National Rail NR class page, and then wants to know how to get a model of a specific unit or colour - either an enthusiast or maybe a tourist?
2. Someone dealing with second-hand or inherited items who needs help establishing a model's history.

That information is complex and not collated elsewhere; note the NR class table was generated by cross-referencing sources across a span of twenty years. Examples of content worth preserving that has been removed:

1. NR Class page - "runs seven and above include speaker enclosures within the chassis, working marker and ditch lights (with a manual switch under the fuel tank) and a modified coupler attachment system with the coupler box opening filled in." (These are all things a person can look for, or might want to know about.)
2. P Class page - "The range does not include any models of locomotive P23." (IIRC due to a difference in the cab window arrangement, I don't know the details, but the cause/difference would ideally be flagged in the main article.)
3. T Class page - "No models of T347-T356 have been released in ready-to-run plastic" (I think this might soon be obsolete?)
4. X Class page - No models of X41 have been released (this was in the table but poorly presented.)

However, I agree with others that my previous work was excessive and too close to advertising for comfort. The price detail certainly wasn't necessary. I think primary sources should be acceptable when listing the products in collapsible, non-disruptive tables, at least in the short term: WP:RS would trump WP:PROMOTION, but I don't object to a flag attached to the references or an article as a whole indicating that an upgrade is required. Ideally, those sources would be superseded by, say, a review of the product series in a relevant source with an ISSN/ISBN, if one exists and is accessible. There's a fair point about avoiding looking like an advertisement, but when there is only one online reliable source and/or the source is for an archived product long since out of production, I think a little more flexibility is acceptable. I'm aware that my work, even reduced, would be significantly more detailed than, say, the Models entries on the British A1, A3, A4 and Coronation pages, and the single (unreferenced) line at the bottom of the GG1 page; conditional on not being distracting, I see the extra information as a positive, not a negative, and I would hope that authors of those pages either provide additional content or links to externally-hosted content to fill those voids. As noted above, if the quantity of information makes it distracting, separating the content to a new page with a link is reasonable.

• Reliability of sources in general - This relates to WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:FANSITE. One of the challenges we're dealing with, at least in Victoria, is that many of the better quality references in the state archives will be locked for decades to come, and there's a risk of information or relevant addenda being lost or "lost" in the meantime. So while, ideally, all statements on Wiki would meet all the above policies, there are understandable reasons why it isn't always practical. Rather than removing the information, I think we should aim for inclusion-with-a-flag if the source is generally understood to be reliable. Given how much information is recorded on fansites of varying quality, I think our Project should maintain a system of communally agreed bypasses to the standard policies, in the form of "User or Source X on Site Y is reliable for Topic/s Z", and a method by which we can discuss nominations for (or removals from) that list. For example, I'd suggest that nearly all the photos and referenced content on Vicsig is reasonably reliable, though unreferenced elements may not be. Therefore, photos and referenced content could be automatically accepted, while unreferenced elements may only be permitted to support or detail a wider claim with a better generic reference. There are also good reasons for referencing Vicsig over its sources, e.g. the station history pages give a long chain of events with references to weekly notices that are otherwise difficult to find. The format of Vicsig also makes it (slightly) easier to collate a timeline of events that would have been detailed across a series of documents, e.g. stages of a project. (As an aside, Vicsig does have an About page [6], for anyone wondering.) The same standard of generally-reliable-pending-better-source should apply to sites like Peter Vincent's page, Norm Bray's flickr site, Weston Langford's site and Wongm's various repositories, noting that the first two are effectively extensions of the Brief History Series books which themselves are generally accepted as reliable; Weston Langford's photos have been published elsewhere (often appearing in, say, Newsrail), and Wongm's work, being far more recent, can generally be cross-referenced with other sources at least for plausibility if not confirmation. Whether additional references confirming each claim should be included in the article would be a balance between the flow of text and the importance of the claim, to avoid having five references after every sentence. Anonymous text threads e.g. Railpage posts could theoretically qualify under the above X/Y/Z structure if, and only if, that particular user has previously established reliability and/or identity. Probably not practical to do, but perhaps we could establish a modified reference system with letters, e.g. ^[4a] where "a" means anonymous-but-reliable source, "e" for enthusiast group etc? Either way, these should probably be filtered via archive.org to avoid the risk of the content being edited or otherwise lost at a later date. Similarly, at one point I had nearly 100 sources [7] in the N Set table which I personally still consider reliable, but which I now accept go against the standard WP:RS. Given the minor importance of the information relative to the rest of the article, and the ability of most (?) people who would actually want to verify the claims being able to access those threads/posts, I think adapting the Reliable Source standard for our purposes is at least worth considering.

• Removal of content that is probably true but doesn't meet WP:RS - outright removal isn't an ideal outcome, both for loss of information and alienating potential contributors who could otherwise be upskilled. I think extracting the content to, say, a chapter on the Talk page for "details pending confirmation" or similar might be worth considering.

• Accessibility of sources - WP:SPS says not to use sites that require registration or social media sites, but that isn't always practical, particularly given that some sources prefer or have to be anonymous and choose to only provide supply information in a limited field. I'd support a ban on those sorts of sites as references for, say, the first 10-20% of a page, but in the more detailed sections I think we should be able to include references to, say, closed Facebook groups, conditional on the reader being able to request access. So the reference would need to be not to (random URL), but to (specific group; request access link; this specific thread/post) or something like that. The element being referenced, e.g. a comment or photo, would be subject to all the other requirements e.g. a reputable source and/or meeting the above X/Y/Z requirements.

• Citing of physical observations - I agree with the general practice that personal observation is insufficient, because it's not something the reader can (at least theoretically) verify. Photos available online or in published sources should be acceptable; ideally more than one photo, from different sources, would be better to avoid the risk of faked photos being used either in bad faith or accidentally; however that risks the articles becoming too bogged down with inline text references and may not be practical in any case. I'm open to a requirement that the photo source be reputable, e.g. from enthusiasts with a reputation for accurate commentary. This ties in to the above discussions.

Anothersignalman (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comment. It's very long so I won't address everything, but ultimately, consensus on this Wikiproject can't override English Wikipedia-wide consensus. We can't just decide to allow unreliable sources on articles. We can discuss marginal sources here to determine if they are reliable, but then again, if the Reliable Sources Noticeboard comes to a consensus otherwise, we have to follow that. Some big no-nos are:

• Using Facebook groups as sources.
• Using photos to draw inferences.
• Using forum posts are sources. I don't think there is any circumstance where a post on the Railpage forum could be considered a reliable source, even if they were someone like Daniel Bowen or another well known figure in the community. Daniel Bowen has his own website, which can be used as a source with caution. Posts on Railpage cannot.

Regarding removal of information that is likely to be true but does not have a reliable source: If your really care about that information, its still in the page history after being removed. Wikipedia goes off what's stated in reliable sources, not what is true. This is the essence of the essay Verifiability, not truth.

Regarding model railway sections on locomotive articles: Being a guide on how to get a model train is definitely not what Wikipedia is for.

Steelkamp (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There is far too much for one thread top consider here, but the reply that Steelkamp has given is really excellent, and I concur with every word, and thank him for the response.

I strongly advise against a thread like this in future, break it down into much smaller parts, that can be considered separately for the average time poor editor, it takes more than one read of such a block of text. If you really want to be a wikipedia contributor - accept the rules!

If you cannot handle them - find a fork project like the recent roads divorce from this wikipedia (editors grew worn down by the antipathy towards roads content that they left and are building a separate wiki. It has been done a number of times before in very diverse subject areas). JarrahTree 10:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Just want to draw the project's attention to an ANI thread

Sorry for barging in with another thread right after another one, please have a read of the thread above by @Anothersignalman before this one.

A user has been at large messing around with categories of railway stations throughout the world including Australian ones, and has been partially blocked pending a lack of discussion and explanation on their part. See WP:ANI#Nchitu is massively categorizing open railway stations as closed or permanent link (as of writing, may be outdated soon enough). Fork99 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Fork99. I noticed several problematic edits of this user which I have fixed. No doubt there are more. This does get me wondering though, are temporarily closed stations (such as the Armadale line ones this year or the Fremantle line ones in 1979) meant to be included within the closed stations categories? I think I'll ask at WikiProject Trains since this concerns more than just Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The closed category is for those stations that closed and remain so, not for ones that closed temporarily or for rebuilding. By way of precedent, the closed category hasn't been added to any of the Melbourne stations that were demolished and rebuilt during the level crossing removal project. Valeinmose (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Model railways sections

Although discussed in a section above, it intermingled within a massive thread discussing numerous issues. These lists of railway model in rolling stock articles are WP:FANCRUFT and of interest to a very small part of the readership. WP:NOTACATALOGUE applies, anybody wanting to buy a railway model is not going to come to Wikipedia to do their research. Noting the arguments already made, see no reason to retain these. Valeinmose (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm probably misunderstanding how WP:Fancruft is supposed to work, so I've asked for clarification on that talk page. Otherwise, while I can't prove it, I have received in-person (verbal) thanks from multiple people for the model railway content I provided on various pages. (I acknowledge that most of the model railway sections were fairly poor quality; the text of Fancruft seems to encourage fixing rather than removal?) Anothersignalman (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Rolling stock lists

There was some high level talk at in August over the need for lists of rolling stock that many articles have, but no formal proposal was put forward to remove.

Do we really need these lists as at Australian National DL class, Commonwealth Railways stainless steel carriage stock, New South Wales 80 class locomotive, V/Line G class or should they be edited out?

The New Zealand project decided to remove them a few years ago. By and large they are WP:FANCRUFT, full of WP:OR and of interest to a very small part of the readership. Happy for them to be retained where there is a cite that backs up everything within them in a WP:RS, e.g. feature articles in one of these publications or other published works, but not these lists built up from WP:OR or using WP:SELFPUB cites like Railpage or Vicsig. Valeinmose (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Would the A² and Dd/Dde renumbering tables be worth keeping, given the listed sources, or do they need to be inline at every row? The citation note on the A² page predates the listing of sources, but I don't know if the second PDF listed on that page counts as a WP:RS? The source's host URL is WP:SELFPUB, but the scans in the PDF specifically should be OK, particularly given that they match the other sources listed? (As an aside, one of the other editors established a few years ago that these sorts of tables cannot be hosted on Fandom because the width required conflicts with the advertising space.) Anothersignalman (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Further thought, the 2nd A² table uses Railpage - a blatantly unreliable source - to support one of its columns. As far as I know, there is no single WP:RS that can provide for the whole column; at the same time, removing that column would negatively impact the dataset. So how do we solve this? We could add different photo links to each row, or a citation needed link where one cannot be found, preferably also leaving the Railpage link in those instances until such time as a reliable source can be provided, but that risks flooding the references at the end of the page for relatively minor claims. Anothersignalman (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that you periodically drop in to think aloud about such things, and it does seem focused upon vic material - the state of rail info for the whole of australia is potentially under review, and if I was to find Tasmanian or West Australian (things I muddle along and through with general ignorance) material utilising railpage or things similar, I would have no problem in removing without discussion, long established as unsuitable regardless of context of what it performs. JarrahTree 08:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I used to be a far more prolific editor maybe five-ten years ago, when I built the outlines/skeletons for a lot of the Victorian rolling stock pages because I got sick of having to manually cross-reference about fifteen different sources every time I wanted to check a minor detail. I haven't had a lot of spare time since then, though I do try to take a few hours occasionally to touch up a few paragraphs or fill in empty sections. I think I'd planned to build the structure, then start from the first edition of each periodical or other reference and work through them all, filling in gaps as I went and using other sources as placeholders. (In retrospect, you're right, that does sound a lot like WP:OR.) My writing from back then has a lot of problems, and I do occasionally try to improve on it, but it's hard to stay enthusiastic/motivated in what sometimes feels like a 'slash and burn' rather than 'gradual, constant improvements' environment; though now I think about it, other people probably feel that way about the content changes I've made? I'm not particularly good at modelling how other people feel or react in general; 'thinking aloud' is part of my process to attempt to understand other peoples' approaches. Anothersignalman (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Photos as references

As part of the reply to my excessively long thread above, Steelkamp wrote that "Some big no-nos are ... Using photos to draw inferences". What is the policy for using photos that clearly demonstrate something? Are they automatically irrelevant unless published in a WP:RS, or can they be used as clear and direct evidence? I don't recall the details, but I think there was something a while back establishing that if photos from a particular author were regularly used in a WP:RS, that author was considered reliable; photos from Marcus Wong and Weston Langford regularly appear in Newsrail, so they should pass that part of the test. Vicsig I'm not sure about, but for the sake of the example below, let's assume it passes that test (and is therefore unlikely to be faked) as well.

Examples/test cases:

• Photo 1 clearly shows that as of the listed date, there was a five-carriage set labelled "VSH28".
• Photo 2 clearly shows that as of the listed date, there was a three-carriage set labelled "FN6" - notable because the "F" is supposed to mean four carriages. I'm guessing this would need at least one more photo, on a different date and at a different location, to establish that this wasn't just a momentary thing e.g. mid-shunting.
• Photo 3 on its own would not count as WP:RS, because the caption is definitely self-published commentary, "BCZ262" isn't clearly legible and the text "FN6" isn't in the photo; but paired with Photo 4 a statement could be made that on that day, set "FN6" was four carriages with a coupled fifth, based on the distinct difference in grime patterns between the first (probably BCZ262) and second carriages? Or does the dirt pattern bit count as an inference?
• Photo 5 used to be attached to a statement on the National Rail NR class page, "The cabside decals of NR120 were also altered to permit addition of the "E", but there is no evidence that this ever happened". It does not support that the gap in the label was made "to permit addition of the "E", but it does support that the gap existed, right?

Anothersignalman (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Well you surely will be on the record for trying to push the limits at every part of the known limits of wikipedia. You are really persistent, and the more you expose the more you give the impression that wikipedia is not for you. That is fine, there are so many other ways of working through the issues.

You are basically in WP:OR territory. We do not make inferences between photographs. JarrahTree 08:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Agree pushing limits/persistence is one of my core traits (not just here, but in every field), and I'm quite bad at turning that down or even recognising when I should try. This XKCD pretty much encapsulates why I keep hoping that Wikipedia, distinct from other hosts, could be made to work for my purposes; a few years ago I did try to create a separate multi-author platform for all this content and that was a complete failure on technical grounds (fandom didn't support wide tables), but there are newer options I need to look into. I forgot about WP:OR when writing the above; I acknowledge that would rule out Photo 2 and the combined 3+4 examples above, but I'm not seeing the application to photo 1 (unless you mean my action of finding the photo, rather than the photo itself?), and I think 5 might be OK for the very limited context I'd established? Anothersignalman (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered replies - it is appreciated. Nope is the answer, photos are not reliable sources, I cannot see a way out of basic rules. JarrahTree 09:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming temporary Brisbane railway station closures

Just a heads up that there a few train stations in Brisbane that will be progressively temporarily closed and reopened due to construction works throughout next year and might need updates to their respective Wikipedia pages, especially as Queensland editors are somewhat few and far between.

This is the only complete list I found online: https://www.airtrain.com.au/blog/rolling-service-upda/city-and-gold-coast-line/.

In case that link doesn't work, the stations involved are (links are to respective Translink travel alerts): Buranda [8], Bundamba [9], Banyo [10], Burpengary [11], Morningside [12], and Lindum [13]. In addition, Dutton Park [14], Rocklea [15], and Yeerongpilly [16] are already closed as of writing.

Other possibly useful sources: Brisbane Times article, Transport Minister statement, Dutton Park to Salisbury Cross River Rail project page. Fork99 (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing hyphens from Melbourne tram class article names

A heads up that I am proposing to remove the hyphen from the title of all article names that contain one in Category:Melbourne tram vehicles, as the official nomenclature from the Department of Transport and Planning is not to have hyphens in tram class names. Examples include on their official website [17], the Melbourne Tram Plan [18] and the PTV website [19]. Other common unofficial sources like Vicsig also do not have a hyphen, and I've been told this directly by the Department. Any feedback welcome! Takerlamar (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As I stated in one of the talk pages concerned, I have no objection to this. If you want, you can WP:BOLDLY just do the moves, or do a multi-page move request (see WP:RMPM for more information). Fork99 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Takerlamar. Fork99 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support, while a good idea to seek opinions here and on relevant talk pages, would recommend going through the WP:RM process given that these are changes to a long established convention. Wantenline (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, going through the RM process is always a good idea when trying to move long established pages like these. Using the RM process will get more people involved in the discussion rather than just starting a regular discussion on each article's talk page. Steelkamp (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, I wasn't aware of that process. I'll submit a discussion via WP:RM as well. Takerlamar (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Note the new WP:RM process discussion over on Talk:G-class Melbourne tram as per comments above. Takerlamar (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Similarly for Sydney, the Sydney Tramway Museum website seems to omit the hyphens for old Sydney trams as well, if you search Google for site:sydneytramwaymuseum.com.au "class". Not sure about primary sources from the time period however. Possibly we could lump those into a separate move as well if other sources seem to agree? Fork99 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Melbourne City Circle tram

Happy new year everyone, I'm currently a little busy outside of Wikipedia at the moment, and don't really feel like doing this right now, could someone please be so kind to update the City Circle tram article to state the 29 October 2023 timetable changes (mainly the cutting back of the route to clockwise operation only); see this The Age news article announcement. Thanks! Fork99 (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted to make the changes. How did I do? Steelkamp (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all good now. Fork99 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of metro systems#Brisbane

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of metro systems#Brisbane which is of interest to this project. Steelkamp (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)