Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Transport/Archive 2

Melbourne railway lines
Many of the Melbourne railway line articles are a bit of a mess. There should only be one article for each railway line (as agreed in the recent North East railway line merge discussion), and one for each railway service. As it stands the lines of distinction are often blurred. For example, there is no such thing as the Craigieburn railway line. There is the Craigieburn line service much like there is the Albury V/Line rail service. These services primarily operate on the North East railway line as well as briefly on other lines on their way out of central Melbourne. To resolve the text on the physical railway line in the Craigieburn line article should be incorporated into the North East railway line, with the former rewritten to solely focus on the service. Same problem applies with the Cranbourne line, Pakenham line, Sunbury line and Werribee line articles. A byproduct is that many Melbourne railway station articles have the line field in the infobox incorrectly populated with the service, that is already covered in the servcices field. Wantenline (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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


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


 * Thanks Steelkamp. The quote refers to what is now the electrified line, but about a decade before that happened, back when it was part of the Geelong/Warrnambool/etc service. To give another example, it's similar to how Sunbury services worked pre-electrification - would that go on the Sunbury line page, the Bendigo V/Line rail service page, and/or the Deniliquin railway line page? The same could be applied to the Pakenham corridor and probably a few others. I'd prefer to avoid putting the same content on multiple pages because it means later edits have to be applied to all of them, instead of just one location, so in the Werribee example I'm thinking the Warrnambool railway line page under a header for historic services, but the Werribee line page could have a link to the line page with caption "For services before 1983, see here" or something like that.
 * Re relevance, agreed the quote doesn't belong in Wiki on its own. I imagine the final use will be something like "...the span of services gradually increased over the decades" with about five Newsrails linked after that statement (where the changes aren't summarised by a single source), so people who want more detail can easily find it. The reference (not the content) might also be useful to demonstrate, say, that the local line had a mix of shuttle and through services, and/or that these were railcars rather than loco-hauled trips. This was just the first example of this sort of thing that I encountered, since NR 04/1974 was at the top of my to-do list. Anothersignalman (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * On the right is a direct comparison between the two versions. I agree the code does look cleaner in the newer version, however aesthetics wise I would want opinion from more users as without the white line the station name doesn't seem to be aligning centre vertically. If the consensus is to change it, we would also need to bring Module:Adjacent stations/Yarra Trams, Module:Adjacent stations/V/Line, and Module:Adjacent stations/PTV Bus to keep it consistent.
 * I also did a test on putting in line colours in the infobox, similar to recent platform signs. However it could be messy since some stations have many lines. Here is the page: Template:Melbourne Infobox station line. Purin128AL (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


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

List of NSW TrainLink railway stations
List of NSW TrainLink railway stations is still quite a mess honestly.

1. Following the consistency of List of Transwa railway stations, I think that Sydney Trains stations shared with NSW TrainLink should also be included in this list. I would simply just include all stations mentioned on the official Transport for NSW intercity trains network map, however objections in the past by other editors were that there were just simply too many stations to add.

1 continued. I disagree with this decision, however, there is some truth to this as the stations on Sydney's North Shore Line between Hornsby and Central via Gordon are only served by intercity trains occasionally, yet are still on the intercity map. Services on the Central Coast & Newcastle Line usually use the route via Strathfield/Epping. In addition, I do agree that there are a lot of stations to be added on the Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line as well (with very confusing stopping patterns as well to add), but I think that we should just add them all without question.

2. Would anyone object to the removal of station codes from the table? Fork99 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on all points. All NSW TrainLink stations should be included. Its in the title: "List of NSW TrainLink railway stations". List of V/Line railway stations and List of Transwa railway stations already do so. As for the station codes, I generally think station codes should be removed from all aspects of Wikipedia, including the station lists and the individual pages for each station. Station codes aren't meaningful to most people, and for a while now I have been removing station codes from all the Perth railway station articles.
 * As an aside, thanks for working on User:Fork99/List of Queensland Rail stations. I would help too if I had more time right now. Steelkamp (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Replacement of Vicsig links
Hi all,

I've noticed some Vicsig links being marked for replacement recently. I thought it was worth mentioning that the site usually (not always) provides its sources for each entry in the location pages these days, so that can probably be substituted? For example, the Vicsig page for Yarraman station references Victorian Railways Weekly Notice No.50 of 1976; the weekly notice contents are generally available either in various magazines/journals which can be found online (e.g. Newsrail behind a paywall, Somersault perpetually up to two or three years prior) or Weekly Notice Extracts 1894 - 1994, 1996, Alan N. Jungwirth, Keith W. Lambert, Weekly Notice Productions, ISBN 0646300105. The main value in linking to Vicsig directly is that each location has a timeline of known events (and some pages have track diagrams for various eras), so providing a link under "External Links" or "Further Reading" might be worth considering. Otherwise, maybe someone could develop a citation template like the one we already have for Newsrail, that works for the Extracts book, and one for Somersault? That's well outside my skill set. Anothersignalman (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)