Talk:Agricultural railways of Western Australia

Agricultural vs wheatbelt railways
The article says (with my recently added cn ):

and the article is currently in Category:Wheatbelt railway lines of Western Australia. Surely WA has agriculture other than the wheatbelt? The article even says:

If there are or were agricultural railway lines other those in the wheatbelt, then neither the statement that "the lines were collectively identified as Wheatbelt railway lines" nor the categorization makes sense.

Possibly there were previously non-wheatbelt agricultural railway lines and they were all closed. If that's the case, the article should probably say so explicitly (with a reference, of course).Mitch Ames (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * would not the "wheatbelt lines", be referenced to fact that those still in use were within the wheatbelt region and the only traffic carried was grain related. Gnangarra 07:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

attempt to reply to the unsigned comment
The specific royal commission on immigration in 1905 and royal commission on railways in 1947 are the quoted items for the information in the articles referred to.


 * the agricultural railway label was that provided by the 1905 royal commission writer was referring to proposed and in process of planned railways in western australia, the term 'wheatbelt' at that stage was very poorly defined, and as a conseuqnece agricultural railway lable of 1905 is close to the current usage of wheatbelt railway.

The article is not making a claim that they were the' agricultural railways of western australia then or now, It is what was described or called by the 1947 royal commision report writer of the time

I am sure WA has agriculture other than the wheatbelt in its earlier defined area, or most recent, it has nothing to do with this article - it was what the royal commission writer was using to summarise the group of railway lines identified as being related to agriculture at the time.

If there were or are agricultural railways other than those identified in the article in the wheatbelt, the purpose for the comment in the article is to relate to the label as given in the royal commission text of 1947.

Furthmore, as to whether there are exceptions or variations, it is not the purpose of the article to examine the issues of excdeptions as to whether there were other agricultural railways - the railway construction was in the defined area as addressed by the royal commission report writer.

It is not the purpose of the article to draw upon on-line references only, and the royal commission reports are the main source.

The very specific usage of 'agricultural railways' was for the purpose of what the royal commission writer of 1947 was using to explain a set or railway lines, similarly the 'wheatbelt railway lines' references are fully covered in the wheatbelt railway lines article, and does not need to be referenced in the agricultural railway lines article.

The specific railway sections mentioned in the table in the article were part of the railway system, and labelled as being part of the larger railway network, and either then, or now might not be necessarily commonly identified as specifically agricultural or wheatbelt railway lines, but might have been given the label as they might have been lines connecting to the other part of the system.

If you are well knowledgable about western australia geography, the railways of western australia, or the various 'labels' used for parts of the railway system in force at different times, I am quite prepared to take you through the torturous route through the annual repoerts of the WAGR from 1905 to 1947 to see how the commisioner felt like venting his spleen upon parliament and politicians in general, it will take weeks, and you will need a sub page for the various quotes, and is quite demanding in terms of geographical knowledge, as well in the sense of understanding the nuances of commissioners of state enterprises in the twentietch century.

However if you are examining the article to simply make sense a basic problem is that asking for 'cn' in main space where the answer is right next to the cn, I cannot help you. The tendency to group a set of railway lines by report writers and journalists is not my personal responsibility to explain to you the issues raising from whether they 'fit' or 'make sense'. The main point to be made is that in 1947, a royal commission writer chose to group a specific sense of lines together to explain an issue about the broader system at the time, and in the 2000s journalists have done the same.

As to sense, the labels 'agricultural railway lines', and 'agricultural railway lines' are labels used by report writer and journalists, and the purpose of the article was not to address whether they are currently open or closed, it has nothing to do with what might in reality be the eventual outcome of earlier or later lines, but in actaul fact the lines 'created' in the terms of the 1947 report writer making a point about the neglkect of the railway system.

As to the comment Possibly there were previously non-wheatbelt agricultural railway lines and they were all closed, has nothing to do with the intent or content of either of the articles, and is not part of what the purpose of offering the information on a wikipedia article. JarrahTree 07:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "However if you are examining the article to simply make sense ... is not my personal responsibility to explain to you the issues raising from whether they 'fit' or 'make sense'."
 * You might consider writing for the benefit of the reader (the reader being "the sole reason for which Wikipedia exists") who might expect that articles do make sense – both individually and when related articles are considered collectively – and "explain[ing] the subject fully".


 * What is the difference between the Agricultural railways of Western Australia and the Wheatbelt railway lines of Western Australia – ie why are there two separate articles? Is one set of lines a superset of the other? Are the two articles intended to cover different time frames in the history of the same set of physical lines?


 * The lead sentence of the article – which nominally defines the scope, and should "give a concise definition ... that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist" – says that the lines were built after the need for a policy whose scope was (with my emphasis here) "all considerable areas of agricultural land". If "agricultural" in this quote (and/or as used for the title of the article) means something other than what the typical modern-day reader would expect ie "cultivation of animals, plants ..." etc – for whatever reason – it would probably be helpful to the reader if the article said so explicitly. If the scope of the article is something other than railways for "all ... agricultural land" (for any definition of "agricultural"), as implied by the lead sentence, then the lead sentence should probably be reworded to define that scope.


 * Once it is clear to the average reader (without that reader having to go through the entire royal commission reports or the entire history of agriculture in WA) what the scope of the the articles is, and why there are two articles, the links between the articles and the categorization will make more sense (and/or can be adjusted to match the article contents). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)