This is an archive of past discussions with User:ThylacineHunter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!22:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!22:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Victorian Railways D class (1887). Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Blank pages are harmful, but incorrect redirect are more harmful and confusing. There was no way of reverting it as it was the only revision. I don't currently have the time to make a full article. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Rail template
I have just created the page Melbourne Railway Company 2-4-0WT (1863) as Template:R with possibilities to the Melbourne Railway Company as a placeholder until someone has time to create content for the page and I then added it to the template. This approach might be a reasonable one for the other items that have been removed as it balances having every item there and not having broken wiki links in nav templates. Gusfriend (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Not really an easy solution, as there are 28 different pages needed to cover the redlinks, on top of at least another 7 for those that are just text. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Whilst it is a chunk of work I like to think of it as getting a head start on the structure that you want and having a page there which turns into a stub which turns into a full page. Gusfriend (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, unfortunately, there isn't too much information about some of these locomotives (either poor record keeping from the 1860's, lost records, inaccessible records in official archives, or even just the fact they were one off locomotives/rolling stock). I'm concerned about making the pages myself due a potential COI pointed out to me previously, and the limited source material I can then quote from. Only really one good resource to reference, and then it become a page tagged as only having one source. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I had hoped of creating a sub WikiProject of WP Australia dedicated to transport to bring the many of us that monitor these pages (at least the many I know into trains), so there would be an easy place to assign a task like this to preserve the accuracy of Wikipedia. Unfortunately those at WP Australia felt it wasn't warranted. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I must apologise profusely for not encouraging the national project idea. I am quite disappointed you are not on email (you are most welcome to email me) as there are comments only really worth being off wiki. In the face of an attempt like the one we see - there is a very valid and cogent need to change the title and scope to national - with prejudice! There was no consultation with the project council (that I can see in the edit history) or with the wider oz community - Individuals who try to become administrators with the level of experience and edit history - are told to go away and come back later, with more experience and understanding of how things work. It seems there is no such hoop for project construction, as of recent the project council is often ignore and avoided. JarrahTree12:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Nah, youre being tempremental - there's nothing that cannot be sorted out - take it easy - you can easily breeze through it - there's a few hoops that can be done - stay with it, and I might be able to help... JarrahTree11:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
sense is not something - whether silly or illogical - that belongs to editing wikipedia, it should have been obvious by now... JarrahTree11:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I was trying to standardise the different stubs that all relate to transport (rail-transport, railstation, road, airport). Some had individual states some didn't. --- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
That is an overreaction. Wikipedia is a collaboration, so you should expect other people to examine your work, and perhaps to comment upon it. Why not start a section at WP:WSS/P retrospectively? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
looks like there is alot of contriversy here I am going to withdraw from the wikiproject and request deletion of all of its articles NotOrrio (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
If sometime in the future someone else were to set up a propper WikiProject for this topic...
And then if "busy bodies" who spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week on Wikipedia looking for things to pick at (empty categories 1 minute after they are made) actually give me a chance to create the necessary connection of things for the project (Yes, I actually spend time in the real world, and yes I do actually need to sleep at night)...
Then I MAY look at returning help run it. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
STATEMENT!
The WikiProject Australian Transport was created by someone else, just for one Australian state. I then (with talks with another member) expanded it to be more inclusive of all Australia. I started padding the page by copying the layout of another Australian WikiProject (honestly, I wasn't too sure with all that sort of stuff. That is definitely NOT my strength). I preceded to set-up basic categories for this WikiProject. This was all done around 1am my time and I was too tired to continue, so I went to sleep, unfortunately I had appointments the following day, and couldn't get on until about 4pm. I proceeded to "standardise" the various different stub templates relating to that project (some had differences from one state of Australia to the next). Ok, I created new stubs without content for them so I could get them ready for areas of the WikiProject I was about to set-up.
I did not appreciate getting bombarded with comments of not doing things correctly! I was trying my best with what was already there.
I was made to feel that Wikipedia was only for the elite, and that if you weren't part of the "in" crowd, you shouldn't be allowed to edit pages (I know this isn't the case) -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, but consider this: every single stub category that you created or edited has this green box at the top, note the sentence "Please propose new stub templates and categories here before creation." Similarly, every single stub template that you created or edited includes this text within its a documentation box, containing the sentence "New stub templates and categories (collectively "stub types") should not be created without prior proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals." So you were informed of the procedure right from the start. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
never worry about it you dont have to do anything, there is a roaming admin who finds/looks for empty categories and puts up for deletion in the wp:CSD criterion, and lets you know...
Rail transport in Victoria has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
All locality based navboxes for Victorian LGA's are now done. Over the next few days, I'll update each LGA page with a list of localities and both 2016 and 2021 census data (as was previously done on some of the pages).
This has taken me about 2 weeks of systematically going through all localities on the Mapshare website to see where locality borders fall in respect to LGA borders.
Once this is done there is an extremely long task of updating infoboxes on each locations page (infoboxes on LGA's could probably also do with a check). But I may instead take a break from locations and go back to updating infoboxes and BSIcon diagrams for the Victorian railway lines. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it is all done now. There is apparently a total 2,978 localities and 79 LGA's in Victoria. I hope there aren't any mistakes which which locality is in which LGA. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Frankston metro service route diagram
Hi ThylacineHunter. I am currently updating the page for the Frankston railway line and have noticed that there is only one type of route diagram. Unlike the pakenham line (as an example) there is only one template called Frankston line, with no additional one called Frankston Metro service. Would you be able to create a diagram for the entire Frankston line including sidings, old lines etc like other similar diagrams? Thank you. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter thank you! As per a discussion on the talk page of the pakenham line I don't think the table with all of the stations past and present makes sense as the page is for the current service. As mentioned previously, these can be included on the route diagram. I've used the same style of table which was used on the pakenham line article which has achieved GA status. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I am aware of that, but the Frankston line is different to both the Cranbourne and Pakenham services. The former stations on the Cranbourne can be covered on the extended South Gippsland railway line and Pakenham on the Orbost railway line, Frankston is different as the extended line is the Stony Point railway line (which is it's own service), there is no where else to mention the former stations. Maybe a collapsible table under the subheading "Former stations" may work, as there will probably be stations the aren't nobable enough for their own page (As per a discussion in WP:TRAINS, stations not notable enough at meant to be mentioned on the rail line page). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Its a better idea to have a different table however on the South Gippsland line and Orbost line pages they don't have a table for the stations and instead only mention them in the map which makes more sense. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter I've finished rebuilding the article. Thanks for adding the infobox for the physical track. I've shortened some of the information as it is already very long. Once you add the track map and fix the route map I will nominate it for GA status. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!02:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Please do not use copy-and-paste to create new versions of category pages. WP:CFD outlines the correct way to move categories. Your method fails to give attribution to the editors who created and previously edited the category page, and it cuts the interwiki links to other-language Wikipedias. Using CFD has the double benefits of first getting potentially better results from having more than one person's eyes upon it, and then getting a bot to do all the moving of individual pages. – FayenaticLondon09:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Seeing as though you are doing the stony point things I'll probably tackle that next. If I have any additional requests in the future I'll let you know. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've started to work on the stony point page. You can see my progress on its page and add the other information overtime. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've gone and finished the Stony Point line article. Once you add the station history table ill go ahead and nominate it for GA status. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Quick note with the track map- Botanic gardens station is linked to a station in Glasgow. Needs fixing. This may also apply on other track maps and tables. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter are you able to finish the Sandringham line infoboxes soon? I'd like to continue work and need some of the information from the infoboxes for the body sections of the article. Thank you. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Quick question about Alamein line signalling- vicsig (yes I know it's not reliable) says that three position signalling has only been provided up to Ashburton- what about the rest of the line to Alamein? HoHo3143 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Signaling as follows:
Camberwell to Riversdale (Down line) - Automatic Block Signalling
Riversdale to Camberwell (Up line) - Automatic and Track Control
Riversdale to Ashburton - Automatic Block Signalling
Thank you. I'll wrap up the Alamein line article tonight before moving onto Belgrave line this afternoon (AEDT time) or tomorrow. HoHo3143 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Should all Metro services also have the physical track infobox on them as the majority will have it?
Already on 6: Alamein, Belgrave, Frankston, Glen Waverley, Sandringham, Stony Point
Will be on 4 when done: Flemington Racecourse, Hurstbridge, Upfield, Williamstown
Not on 2: Cranbourne, Pakenham
Unsure about 5: Craigieburn, Lilydale (as splits into two lines), Mernda (as page cover Whittlesea), Sunbury, Werribee (as Geelong no longer on this line)
The track infobox should be placed on the Healesville railway line as the lilydale line runs on it for a period of time. The Warburton railway line should also receive an infobox similar to how the Gippsland line (has the pakenham line running for part) has one and so does the South Gippsland line (has the Cranbourne line running for part even though post Cranbourne it is closed now). In short, the Lilydale line shouldn't whereas the Healesville and Warburton lines should have one. HoHo3143 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I have updated the Belgrave line stopping pattern. This took longer as there were at least 4 different types of Ltd Express services, I have condensed them down to 1 for convenience as it was starting to get ridiculously complicated. I still need to double check with the Lilydale if there are services just to Ringwood and if so, what stations are skipped (this is more complex as it is spread over multiple timetables).
I have also found a better way to make the tables without having to align every individual cell. This will make editing them easier. I'll go and update the previously done pages to this new way of doing it. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Also on Belgrave / Lilydale lines, due to Union station still being under construction:
Journey times on the service map after Chatham are only approximates based on the timetable stopping at Surrey Hills & Mont Albert stations - No new timetable with Union has been released yet.
Stopping pattern for Union station - Again awaiting an updated timetable.
Both service and line route maps only show an approximate location for Union station - This will be updated upon completion of the station when an official distance is listed.
Sorry if I'm falling a bit behind on these, I currently have Covid and haven't been able to give this the attention this requires. I feel like I'm on the mend and should be able to get back into this within a day or 2. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter all good. Hope you start to feel better soon. I've been busy with school recently anyway. When you are able to, finish the lilydale stuff asap. Then you can continue onto the Hurstbridge line. If you haven't started that line by the time I make it there I'll let you know. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter I don't want to rush you into finishing the remaining bits of the Lilydale line, but if you are able to, please do it ASAP. If you are unable to let me know and we can work something else out. Ive finished most sections that don't require your contributions so in order to finish the article, I need you to add the final bits of info. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter thank you! Much appreciated. I will finish up the other bits and nominate it for GA status tonight. Hope you are feeling better post COVID. Once I finish this article I will move on to the Hurstbridge one so you can start working on it when you are able to. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Gracchus250 thank you! At this stage only the hurstbridge article as all the previous ones already had one. I'll let you know in the future if I come across any other articles that need one. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter I have now split the Mernda and Whittlesea articles to reflect the consensus of the discussion we have had. When you are able to, do the mernda things then whittlesea one. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I have restored the Whittlesea page and added [Template:about]] to the top of both pages so they hopefully won't be re merged back. I've also finnished the station histories an added the relevant one to each page. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Going by our discussions, they technically shouldn't be on Pakenham, Cranbourne, Mernda, Craigieburn, Sunbury, or Werribee pages. Although, due to Pakenham becoming Traralgon and then Bairnsdale, it may be considered too long to not include it until Orbost (372.6 km from Melbourne). The same argument can apply for Craigieburn (251.4 km), Sunbury (324.7 km), and Werribee (285.92 km). If we include the Metro section on the Metro service page this will help reduce these long lines.
Cranbourne is a bit different although it is a long line (187.6 km), it is all closed after Cranbourne (I have considered moving it to the Port Albert line and possibly starting it at Dandenong to reduce the length).
@ThylacineHunter thanks for merging the two articles about the stations. I reckon that the diagrams should be placed on both the main lines and the metro services. On the main line articles, they should show everything (for example) from Southern Cross to Albury including the parts from the metro service page even though it will duplicate some information. The diagram should be placed on both pages as you have the station histories table that provide similar information, so it's good for people to visualise the information through two ways. This doesn't mean that the track infobox should be placed on the metro articles- they should only be placed on the main lines. Let me know your thoughts.
Also good idea to go through and update the other articles to remove the diagrams and add some extra notes- let me know once you've finished these. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
With Mernda station histories, I removed the ones relating to former stations, if I add the Whittlesea diagram, this won't match up. Also, including it on both may result in the pages being merged back.
@ThylacineHunter the way youve done the track diagram is better. I think this is a good standard. I'm going to finish this article by the end of the week before moving onto the Upfield line. In the mean time you can do the inner circle and mont park infoboxes etc before moving onto the upfield line. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter that's all ok- at least its an easy fix. I'm working through the 20th century history and hope to finish it tonight. Once that's done (and the lead section) I'll wait till you've finished your bits before nominating it. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter thank you. I've nominated the article now. Looking at the Craigieburn article, how do we approach the Broadstore branch? I have a few questions:
@HoHo3143, my bits for the Flemington line are done and on that page. Craigieburn is just waiting on me to check the timetable for frequency, journey time and stopping patterns (I'll finish them tomorrow). --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't the Port Fairy line cover the track from Port Fairy to Southern Cross via the RRL as this is how the services go now? Then the Werribee line would cover the Werribee line + the track to Little River? This would also involve merging the Deer Park-West Werribee article. HoHo3143 (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
No, the Port Fairy line is via Werribee.
The Geelong & Warrnambool services are somewhat unique compared to the other services in Victoria. Unlike the other services that run on one dedicated individual line, these two run on multiple lines - Port Fairy line to Manor junction, then Deer Park–West Werribee line, then Serviceton line from Deer Park West. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't that mean that the Werribee–Little River link wouldn't need to be covered on the Werribee line and instead on the Port Fairy railway line article @ThylacineHunter? HoHo3143 (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter that makes sense but I'll have a look into it once I make my way there. Ive finished the Flemington racecourse line but am just waiting on @Gracchus250 to create an interactive map before I submit it. I'll start working on the Sunbury line now. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
All Metro track diagram maps (except Flemington Racecourse, Stony Point & Sunbury) are now waiting on 9 new BSicons to be created. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter I've finished the Sunbury line and am just waiting on the track diagram which you'll place one the icons are created. I am also waiting to see if @Gracchus250 @Gracchus250 is able to create an interactive map for the Flemington racecourse line. Once that's been made I will be able to submit that article too. HoHo3143 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
@HoHo3143 Flemington isn't appearing correctly in the interactive map template, so I will have to spend a bit of time looking at what's wrong with the openstreetmap data for Flemington. I'm a bit busy currently but I'll try to get to it this week. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
@Gracchus250 thanks for letting me know. Sorry if I've been bugging you with the pinging but just didn't know if you had seen the messages. Once you have finished the map, ping me to let me know and I'll go ahead and submit the article as it's all ready to go. HoHo3143 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@HoHo3143 That's no worries, it usually only takes a few minutes to create but there's a problem with both Flemington and Williamstown not displaying. It means I will have to take a close look at the openstreetmap data to figure it out. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'm going to wait for the track diagram to be completed for the Sunbury line (or Flemington whichever is completed first) before moving onto the Williamstown line just so I don't have to many articles that I'm working on. I will be working on some other things though whilst I wait. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The other are now done. I still need to check some bits of Belgrave and Lilydale to check that they are current for the proposed standard to include on Australian line diagrams. I'll get back to this (and Werribee / Williamstown lines) as soon as I finish what I'm currently working on. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I've gone and nominated the Sunbury line article now. A few notes:
- I have a couple of wikipedia and school things I need to complete first before moving onto the Williamstown line article.
- @ThylacineHunter you've said that you need to work on some other things before starting on the Williamstown line article.
- @Gracchus250 when you have some spare time, you'll need to do the interactive maps for the Flemington Racecourse and Williamstown lines so I can submit the FR article. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter I'm able to start working on the Williamstown line article now- would you be able to work on your components of the article? @Gracchus250 can you please fix the Flemington Racecourse and Williamstown line interactive maps ASAP so I can nominate the FR article? HoHo3143 (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I suggest adding a track infobox onto the Werribee line page due to the complexity of the sidings (6) and former stations (12) just on this section and also due to the Altona branch. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter I've had a look at your suggestion about the Mont Park railway line. How should we classify wether it's a branch line or a siding? Is a siding 2 stations or less and for branch line is over 2 stations (some exemptions though). Bit confused. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
After classifying Broadstore as a siding not a line, I'm not 100% convinced with most of the eight 1-stop branch lines (listed below) as having enough information to warrant having separate articles. The exceptions being Spring Vale Cemetery (as there is lots of info) and Welshpool Jetty (as a different gauge). I'm also unsure with Ballarat Cattle Yards line as it's technically 2 seperate sidings
I've also been thinking about the Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines. These might be better represented if they are seperated from the current tram lines. If they are seperated, Then I'd propose to merge the St Kilda-Windsor line onto the St Kilda line (as we did with the Upfield-Somerton link) due to there not really being any stops on it only open for 3 years. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
As this was 166 years ago, government department related (notorious for departmental name changes), and the first Acts of Parliament relating to a new area of regulation, thing will be EXTREMLY messy. In all honesty, this period of 3 years could result in 10 different ownerships. As they are owners incharge of only construction (and not operation), this link should be appropriate for the Williamstown, Werribee, and Port Fairy lines. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@HoHo3143, I've started adding my bits to the Werribee line page, and also done the operators table for it due to complex issue of the Altona Beach Estates. I just have the Werribee track infobox and stopping patterns left to add, and to update the frequence section in the service infobox. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for progress you've made. I'll finish the Williamstown line by the end of the week.
Maybe for one stop branch lines they should be merged into the article associated with the branch? Example would be the Newport Power Station Siding into the Newport Power Station article. They would have their own level 1 subheading, infobox, and track diagram. They would also be linked in a section called siding in the rail lines infobox- what do you think of this? HoHo3143 (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Wedderburn line is going to be the biggest problem to define that way. It shouldn't be added as a section to the town page (will be messy with a station infobox as well as town infobox). While a page about it as just a station would easily cover everything.
This will also help the the numerous other stub branches (most are referred to as lines) I've since remembered about:
If this'll be the case, maybe we should just stick with creating a new article for each (and when deep research is done we'll be able to find out history and other info) HoHo3143 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter I have now finished the Williamstown article and am ready to nominate it. Before nominating the article, @Gracchus250 needs to fix the interactive maps on the Flemington Racecourse and Williamstown articles (at least one of these needs to be done before I move on but preferably both). HoHo3143 (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter also so you can continue working on the diagrams and infoboxes for different articles we should decide on a strategy. I think:
For lines/branches/sidings that were once in operation and have now closed, they should all have their own page
For lines/branches/sidings that were once in operation and have now been converted into tram lines they should be merged into that respective line
This would mean that information can be presented more simply and allow for less confusion. What do you think? HoHo3143 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Gracchus250 for fixing the map on the Williamstown railway line article. Now all that needs doing is the map on the Flemington Racecourse line so that article can be nominated and then I can move onto the regional lines. HoHo3143 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter I have been able to finish the project of nominating all Metro service pages to GA status as I was able to (with some help from other uses) fix the interactive map. Shortly, I will start moving onto rebuilding the regional service pages. Thanks for all your help so far with the diagrams and infoboxes. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
