User talk:Wongm/Archive01

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Welcome!

Hello, Wongm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 03:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki links and underscores

It is not necessary to use underscores inside internal Wikipedia link. So Transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong is the same as [[Transfer_of_the_sovereignty_of_Hong_Kong]]. Note: the colon in the first link is just so that the article doesn't link back here. Hu 10:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I was confusing. I have corrected this comment by changing "spaces" to "underscores". Hu 01:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Avalon Airport

Noticed the work you did there earlier today, great job. Would be nice to get a lot more historical information on Australian airports into their respective articles. Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Market Square

Just noticed your expansion of this article - nice work! It's making for a really interesting article so far. Rebecca 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Geelong Square

Just became aware of your Geelong contributions. Nice work- thank you. I am the author of the drawing of The Bandstand and have other drawings available for Wikipedia on the Geelong area. It would be good to have and editor with a particular interest in the area. Do you know the history of Griffith's Bookshop? Simonfieldhouse 11:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

on the Griffith's Bookshop - unfortunately not. The main book I have been using for info is Peter Begg's "Geelong - The First 150 Years" - it's a compendium of historic newspaper articles the Geelong Advertiser re-published during 1989 and 1990. Wongm 05:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Geelong

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Geelong. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Besides the standard template for deleted text: I think that deleting the content was a mistake - just pay a little bit of attention to your edits! ;-) Ivansanchez 00:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a section edit, that turned into a whole page edit. You caught it before I reloaded the page. ;-) Wongm 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, you just deleted the research labs paragraphs :-P Ivansanchez 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you revert it then I'll start again. Wongm 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else already did. I won't be touching this article, because you are doing a great job! (Anyway, I'll ask you to use the "show preview" and "show changes" buttons - it'll help to point out mistakes before you make them). And again, nice job! Ivansanchez 01:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgetting to close ref tags doesn't help either... Wongm 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Portland, Victoria

LISTEN UP TOSSBLOCK. GO FUCK WITH YOUR OWN PAGES. DO YOU FUCKING WORK AT WANNON WATER? NO YOU DON'T. SO DON'T GO CHANGING STUFF WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrystalRavensKlaw (talk • contribs) 01:54, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I was just going on your previous revisions being unsourced so reverting them. The figures I had were sourced from the webpages I linked to. Wongm 02:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Energy in Victoria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Geelong Jazz Club

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Geelong Jazz Club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Longhair\^talk 08:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Digicall Australia Article Deletion

Hi There

I found you flagged the article I created above as blatent advertising and was hoping you could justify your reason for it? I realise it's too late to prevent as the page has already been deleted but as someone who works for the company in question I believe that there was nothing that fell outside the guidelines in question. I would also like to point out that everything I put into that article was very easily verifyable from the references given.

(Matt croxson 09:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

In short - it didn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. The article didn't say anything more than just what the companies website shows. Wongm 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bellarine Peninsula Railway - Showgrounds siding

Hey Wongm!

Because I know you're down that way you might be able to answer the question I raised (and subsequently forgot about) a while ago on the Bellarine Peninsula Railway Talk page. It relates to the line diagram which I think sticks out the wrong way. I'll leave it for you to fix if you like. Keep up the good work! (See you on vicsig! - similar but not identical user name) - Rick69p 12:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Roundabout

I was reverting sneaky vandalism, I relised that some idiotic Ip had put in the history section that "They were technically square" however I didn't relise how many good edits had been put on top, so I shoud have reverted it manually, sorry. The sunder king 08:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gippsland

Isn't it frustrating that User:87.206.104.24 keeps reverting the edits on McMillan and Strzelecki. They clearly both explored parts of Gippsland, don't know what he's thinking though. I did an IP trace and it's someone in Poland, just view his edit history then click one of the IP trace links. We might have to get the page semi-protected to stop non-users from editing, however I don't know how to do this. Cheers Slabba 07:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:T & G Building, Geelong

I've left a comment at Talk:T & G Building, Geelong suggesting a wider scope for this article. Feel free to comment there as per my suggestion. BTW, fantastic work on Geelong you've been doing of late. It's hasn't gone unnoticed :) -- Longhair\^talk 08:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Wongm, I hereby award you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar, for all your hard work on maintaining, filling out, correcting, and otherwise improving articles surrounding Victoria's railways and public transport. There must be hardly a page on my watchlist that you haven't improved. Keep up the great work! Evan C (Talk) 14:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Haileybury, Melbourne

I have moved the page back to Haileybury, Melbourne for now as Haileybury is the registered name for the school not Haileybury College. In order to prevent it sounding like a suburb maybe it should be changed to Haileybury (school), Melbourne or something similar. Any thoughts? Sendreplyfwd 13:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chicago Freight Car Leasing Australia logo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chicago Freight Car Leasing Australia logo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Railpage

I was only adding the link as I thought people reading the article would find a general Australian rail related link of interest. I'll cease if it's against policy. Cheers.61.88.130.61 06:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wide Centre Double Junction

Thank you for unbotting the deletion of this diagram. I have marked it GFDL. Tabletop 10:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My image of the SCC and current XPT on Rail rollingstock in New South Wales

G'day, I'd like to know why my images of the current XPT and preserved Silver City Comet at the RTM were removed from the page, the current XPT shows what they look like now and the SCC represents what they looked like before they were withdrawn in 1989. Surely there can be two images for that section as there are two for 620/720, Double deck Interurban Cars, and 1972 Comeng Power Cars. Image in question is Image:Silvercom.jpg and Image:IMGP0497.JPG ; Cheers, Vicer 06:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno why I picked your particular shots to cull out - I think because they were similar to others already on the page, and those particular trains were taking up a lot of room. The fact they were both yours was coincidence. If the train in question has its' own page, I reckon there should be one image of it there anyway. Anyway - the Silver City Comet surely deserves a page for itself - there are outside my field of knowledge bar the NSW railmotor book I borrowed years ago, but IIRC they were the first aircon train in in Australia, or perhaps NSW. They lasted in service for ages as well. Wongm 07:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but what do you think of having my 'Current livery' XPT image in the page instead of the previous livery? Both images are in its main article though.. so I dunno. Also I do agree that the SCC deserves it's own page. You are correct that it was the first aircon train in NSW, infact it was the first to be used within the British Commonwealth, and was in service between the 1937 until 1989. - Cheers, Vicer ^{Userpage | Talk} 08:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes more sense to have a current liveried photo up - you might just want to crop a bit of the platform on the right of your shot out, so the focus is on the train more then reupload - I think that was the reason why I prefered the other photo. Wongm 09:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Righto, I'll get onto it. I have created the article for the Silver City Comet, it's not great but it's a start. - Cheers, Vicer ^{Userpage | Talk} 10:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far - I just fixed a few redlinks in it for you. ;-) Wongm 11:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Port of Geelong, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

City of Greater Bendigo template.

Thanks for finding that for me. Very careless of me (and a little embarrassing!). Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 07:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oi ( 3803-10)

Excuse me but was it you who fused my 3803-10 article to the 38 class article? It was meant to be a seperate article and I would like the 3803-10 article to be returned to its former condition. It has DEEPLY frustrated me-Thanno1995 nov11 07 (UTC)

I did it because there is already a page on the entire class - New South Wales 38 class locomotive. The important locos (3801) can get their own page because they are important, but the others can just go into the main page on the class, otherwise we have a million pages on each end every loco, with not much info in them. I moved the stuff from the 3803-10 into the New South Wales 38 class locomotive page - you would be better off making that page bigger. Hope it explains what I ave done - I've noticed you are just new. ;-) Wongm 09:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for going off the hook like that.

I was going to make one article for every ten locomotive batches like i've seen with some other locomotive articles. If its ok with you, may I leave the 38 class article as it is and continue with my 3803-10 3811-20 3821-30 project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanno1995 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the locos in those batches heaps different? As far as I know, the only difference was the number on the side, and the first few being streamliners. You might as well just make subheadings under the main class page for all the locos, otherwise we get bits and pieces everywhere - the New South Wales 38 class locomotive article isn't very long right now anyway and can do with expanding. Wongm 09:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

-Well I can add subheadings with links to the main article. But that might take a few days considering I have lots of work to do. BTw, the actual appearance is very similar with each loco, although the history and jobs are not. I'll fix em up and stuff sometime tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanno1995 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Railways

I reverted the city merges because they were unnecessary. We have articles on every line on the network, and every station on the network - I see no reason why we should merge station articles into line articles when it would be possible to have perfectly good seperate articles on both.

Your merges on the regional articles, however, made no sense whatsoever. The Warrnambool line is virtually always referred to as the Warrnambool line, not part of the Geelong line. It is treated as such both in the public eye and in official sources, and has different services and a different history to the shorter version. The same goes for the Ararat, Echuca and Swan Hill lines. All of these are regional lines in their own right, branching off from the Bendigo line, yet you merged them into the Bendigo line for no apparent reason. Rebecca 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Aust school private

Your edit to the template has been reverted, not by me, by another user. It is quite clear from the discussions on the talk page of the article that your edits would be controversial, but you still went ahead and did them, that is very poor form. In future; discuss, agree, then change. Dont just go and do your own thing, we are working here together. Thanks. Twenty Years 14:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Your report to AIV: SBC0001 (talk · contribs)

Hi, I removed your report, since this user's previous accounts were {{uw-ublock}}ed. They can create a new account. Arguably, Ihave a bad feeling about that one, but blocking now would be bitey. Thanks for your help! -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review - Geelong, Victoria

Hi, I have added some comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Geelong, Victoria that may be useful. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 12:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already cast my eye over them - thanks, the ideas are quite useful. Wongm (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work on Geelong. This is not far from GA standard now. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your efforts have not gone unnoticed

		The Gandy dancers Barnstar
		Wongm/Archive01 has earned the Railroad workers award for tireless efforts in maintaining the Trains WikiProject.

Thanks! --DP67 ^(talk/_contribs) 12:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Railway signalling

Thanks for all your good work on the railway signalling articles! Signalhead (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Geelong FAC

Straight to FAC! Good luck and don't be disheartened by the comments and requests you will receive there. My time online will be limited over the next few days, but where I can I will help. I will also add some comments and suggestions at the FAC page. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 10:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

General Motors railway station, Melbourne

Thanks, that sounds great. I thought it was too important of an article to be deleted in its entirety, used to travel on that line as a kid. Cheers! NewAust (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

retored, it came up on a list of copy violation images of melbourne train stations, have contacted the image source for necessary permissions rather then delete. Hopefully we'll get a quick response. Gnan garra 08:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Railway companies

Ta for that - just a residual argument of long standing finding australian librarians gleefully allowing the usage of railroads into their subject catalogues as if it was standard usage in australian context - railway companies is same thing - cheers Satu Suro 05:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Probably a start (still struggling with the correct terminology that dosnt challenge the reader) at fixing things in the first para at - List of Australian railway companies - cheers Satu Suro 06:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne Nav boxes

Your navigation boxes for Melbourne look awful - they're simply too big for the pages they're on. You don't need a lengthy table for something with three or four words in it. Why don't you adopt the standard style that is being used for all wiki pages around the globe? Talk to Mackensen about it - he has been doing a good job with other cities. JRG (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking 'awful' may be a bit harsh, but there is a standard rail box that is used on may UK rail pages for instance and could easily be adapted. Look at Wimbledon railway station for an example. Endarrt (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone else made one of them bigger, and no-one objected to it, and I liked the look of it, so I did the same to the rest. Chase up a few other opinions and we will see what happens. Wongm (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I do have to admit, they did look better the way they were. Even on my 1280x1024 screen, it is just stretched too much. I'd hate to imagine someone with a massive widescreen monitor trying to read the navbox. Just my opinion. --Lakeyboy (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I do have to admit, something looks 'right' about having it like a full width navbox, but on the other hand it does look very empty. Any thoughts on the best location on the page - the very bottom just before the stub templates seems okay, and that what most of them are anyway, so it isn't really a change. Wongm (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your outstanding edits to articles related to Railways in Victoria Dan027 (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

I do not want to start any argumnets - but the west coast tas railways article is a totally different format and way of thinking compared to the rather poorly done tass article - could we have a talk before I make an argument to detach and expand (both) ? Satu Suro 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you object, then feel free to put it back the way it was. I'm stuck in the 'one and only railway network per state' kind of thinking from being brought up on the railways in Victoria. Wongm (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would consider that to be a fallacy for the start - you have main lines, you have regional lines (closed and open), and heritage/tourist lines - I would have thought all three types (and even further breakdowns into more refined categories) require slightly different emphasis - I mean South Australia you have the 3 diff gauges - hence different systems - I thought victoria has narrow gauge systems in the past as well - to me that means a whole range of different characteristsics.

I will only revert the merge on the basis that you understand that I am doing it in good faith and with all intentions of making it a much better article using my recently acquired copy of the quail atlas - if any stage we have problems - I have a couple of independent eds who could look at our difference for an outsiders assessment and who are very good mediators. Assuming there is no further issue I will revert. Please feel free to offer comments at any of the articles talk pages for your side of the argument - I go for separation of the systems by either gauge, region and function myself and only where a single gauge or system works would I dare even assume a single article. But thats me - cheers and thanks for your response Satu Suro 09:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point now - Victoria does have the Narrow_gauge_lines_of_the_Victorian_Railways article for the 30, but they all used the same gauge, and same owner, and rollingstock. Railways on the West Coast of Tasmania deals with a variety of smaller tramways, tramways which have less in common with the [{TasRail]] and successors network. I need to head back to the Victorian page and mention the various private railways. Wongm (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I developed a vast headache when entering the ARHS NSW shop at Central Station about 3 weeks ago - spend over $600 on books or not have enough for fuel money for to cars back to Perth:) , I opted for the quail and the quinlan and newland australian rail routes books - less than 100 - so its gonna be my call - to keep diff systems and regions spearate where possible - but with good overview arts to lead to the regionals - so I really need to - having reverted - do a summary in the main tas article - I owe it to you! cheers Satu Suro 09:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I had thought that the - Category:Regional railway lines in Victoria - might have been a strength of the possibility of dealing with specific lines and operations that have a relatively independent or not necessarily connected to other parts of the system - where the idea for tassie is why i was wanting to keep the separation - not just the gauge issue. cheers Satu Suro 09:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And another thought from me - among Victorian articles before I started there is a big 'Connex and V/Line only' school of thought, with most of the articles just being about their services, and the fact that said railway stops there. Furthermore, each line article is based upon said companies services: Sunbury railway station, Melbourne is on the Bendigo, Echuca, Swan Hill and Sunbury railway lines by that measure, even though it is just an intermediate stop! Wongm (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think we need a railways in australia group/section/workgroup sometime for working through standardisation of materials - but i would say we need about another 1,000 arts before we even think of that! :| Satu Suro 10:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rail transport in Victoria

g'day, your recent edits to the Rail transport in Victoria article have made a HUGE difference to the article, i've just read over it a few times and feel it should be nominated to become a Good article, do you have any objections over this, or plans for anymore major editing in the next few days to weeks? --Dan027 (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections to the nomination, and no real editing plans - can't think of much else. Doing articles on the rail lines that don't see pax services is possibly next. The general 'checklist' of topics should be useful for other "Rail transport in xyz" articles as well. Wongm (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I shall nominate the article shortly when i get the chance. Another useful addition towards the articles could be starting a railways in Victoria Wikiproject, there is a number of people editing these articles and reaching some general guidelines to follow and like you said a check list of articles to be improved and created would be rather useful. --Dan027 (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs

I tend to try to separate reflist items from unused ref items and put them in further reading - visually at least there is less likely for a reader to wonder whats going on - so my rule is if it is not connected as a cite in the text i drop it to the further reading area - hope you understand what i am up to ! Satu Suro 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK

Before you create a category - two things

have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_closed_Perth_railway_stations
If you create a category - at least - plaease - put the australian project, and state project tag on the discussion page

Thanks Satu Suro 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Point take - quite often I stumble across new pages that don't have much links to them - putting those tags in means you have at least some chance of finding them. Wongm (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Then

Did you actually check in the trains project (which of course you should be adding the various tags as well - as to whether there is already a workshop category somewhere in there first? Satu Suro 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look there, but did to a search for workshops, and only found two categories by country, which didn't have a relevant parent other than their own countries categories. Wongm (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - it attracts very bad vibes to create synonymic catgeories ! anyways keep up the good work - im off Satu Suro 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Shudder

Youre moving through my home territory with a thoroughness that makes me think i should give you a star or award or something - it makes me think for western australia - there are about another 400 or so 'closed railway stations that need to go up - with at least 100 or so quite significant stations - oh well some day.. cheers Satu Suro 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw/fyi

The trans australian article is very poor quality by my expectations - there are three separate articles - That should stem from it (1) the railway line - and all the stopping places (2) the railway line history (politics heaps of it before during and after construction) (3) the passenger train 'the trans' so wheneber i get the time :( Its a lot of wok and a lot of refs for that one Satu Suro 05:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on the Melbourne - Sydney pass train - the Spirit of Progress was the only one with an article. The ICD is next up. I just also realised Central Australian Railway is wrong - Central Australia Railway is correct... Wongm (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realise that we are but pin pricks on the large posterior of the undone material of australian railway history on wikipedia :) Satu Suro 06:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Commscats for EMUs

Are you going to add back all the Commonscat links for the EMUs that previously had them through the {{British Rail EMU}}? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, changing the 'look' isn't that important. Reverted. Wongm (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Category - defunct railway companys

Some were never what in any sense be known as companies in the Australian context The usage of the term 'company' is possibly misleading - it might need re-naming Satu Suro 11:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Organisations? Entities? Might need to do the same to the parent Australian cat as well. Wongm (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Big problem - not sure myself but i know company might be ok in usa, but here in australia they were departments, commissions, and government operations - not easy to have a simple answer - I would suggest railway operators - might be wrong though Satu Suro 11:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosstown Railway and inline references

I really donn't think inline references are required here, especailly when they are simply page refs to the one source. It clutters the article unneccesarily. Happy to get a third opinion if you want to run it past someone else. Citizen D (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you in a way - I did it partly because I got a copy of the book and was verifying things in the article. Perhaps taking a hatchet job to it and cutting them down to 10 or so references? Wongm (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it was fine as it was, but I am biased as I authored most of it. My understanding is that where there are individual, or one-off facts or assertions coming a new source then this should be referenced inline. When a lot of general data has come from the one source then this should be in the generic reference section. The only time I thought a direct reference was necessary was in relation to the possible only passenger train that ran on the line and seeing as Jowett and Weickhard were referencing others in that part I thought it best to simply quote verbatim. Citizen D (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cat for renaming

Defunct railway companies of Australia - is misleading and misrepresents over a 100 years of Australian railway history - there need to be 2 leave the category as it is - and the other needs to be 'Former government railway authorities of Australia - and we need to separate very very carefully! otherwise it is a travesty Satu Suro 10:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I disagree or anything, but heading up to the parent Category:Rail transport it only believes companies run railways, not government departments and authorities. Wongm (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, I think we need some kind of category for non-government railway lines, either for each state, or Australia wide: eg the industrial and logging tramlines, shortlines, etc. Ones like the Silverton Tramway and the Yallourn 900mm Railway. Wongm (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been a lot of books written about australian railway history that run counter to this company stuff - it makes the whole wikipedia oz rail project look stupid- it needs to change and reflect the real history - and so a number of the categories need to change - Satu Suro 11:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

btw - stuff rail transport - we will have to sort that out for oz conditions Satu Suro 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of former Australian railway companies (a) - needs to go to two - one as is - the other (b) List of former government railway authorities of australia -
- - I havent checked every one of the below - but the marked ones are from top of my head so to speak
Australian National Railways Commission (b)
Commonwealth Railways (b)
Deniliquin and Moama Railway
Freight Australia
Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company
Great Northern Rail Services
Kerang-Koondrook Tramway
M-Train
Martin & King
Melbourne and Hobson's Bay Railway Company
Melbourne and Suburban Railway Company
Melbourne, Mount Alexander and Murray River Railway Company
Metropolitan Transit Authority (Victoria) (b)
Powelltown Tramway
Public Transport Corporation (b)
South Australian Railways (b)
St Kilda and Brighton Railway Company
State Transport Authority (Victoria) (b)
Victorian Railways (b)
West Coast Railway (Victoria)

and it is a very incomplete list for a start Satu Suro 11:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Please help - I may have inadvertantly moved between the two lists things that belong in the other - I would appreicate a check - but please do not fall in with alien concepts like this again - it really does not fit australian conditions

If you are going to put in 'order of demise' and then dont put the dates in the list - dont put it in - please

Please take more care with this sort of list/article - it can really make the WP Australia look dumb when we use alien concepts that dont fit - thanks

thinking of that we have to find a more suitable place for the list of former government authorities than the category of defunct companies - any ideas?

Satu Suro 12:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Template

Thanks for that I was going to ask you for that. :) (hope i havent lost you)What do you think the larger category that I put the list former authorities could have a sub category there? Satu Suro 12:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just poked into List of Australian railway companies - this govt page is a good rundown. Need to reorganise a bit still, some are track owners and train operators, other as track managers and train operators. Then some are just operating brands of the govt (NSW Railcorp (RIC?): Cityrail + Countrylink).

Re: Please help - looks fine to me.

Re: parent categories: dug up Category:Organisations based in Australia for us, and Category:Organizations by subject can have a subcat for rail transport added? Also Category:Government-related organizations -> then subcats Category:Government institutions and Category:Government-owned companies.

My head hurts. Wongm (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a rest - thanks for your help - I dunno if i like cats outside of the railway one though - Thanks for your good faith response to my headache ( i used to travel the railways a very long time ago when they were all state authorities only)- cheers Satu Suro 12:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

found Category:Government agencies as well. Wongm (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

hey I just found [1] ued on a victorian tramway article - we could do things for australia in there as that art is very limited in range Satu Suro 13:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Australian narrow gauge railways has a minor overlap, because private line usually meant narrow gauge. Narrow gauge was also government though as well. Wongm (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read carefully about lines - there are always clear differences - I have just got a copy of a book 'Rails through the bush' about WA timber railways - it is always clear who is who and what is what - please do not spread stuff like that - there is no possibility of generality like that - check out western tasmania - they had 2 ft government lines for a start - dangerous generalisation! Satu Suro 13:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Doncaster railway line, Melbourne

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doncaster railway line, Melbourne, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.