Talk:Albury line

Australia: Victoria / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Albury line is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Seymour railway line, Victoria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albury V/Line rail service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Superseded by Talk:Albury V/Line rail service#Requested move 3 October 2024. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albury V/Line rail service → Albury line – Under WP:COMMONNAME, the name should be "Albury line" not "Albury V/Line rail service" ThylacineHunter (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This should have probably been done as a multi-move request as all of the following are under similar move requests: Albury V/Line rail service, Ballarat V/Line rail service, Bendigo V/Line rail service, Geelong V/Line rail service, Gippsland V/Line rail service, Seymour V/Line rail service, and Warrnambool V/Line rail service. Fork99 (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 3 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The argument that article titles should be at natural names is more persuasive, notwithstanding future moves or mergers. (non-admin closure) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.

– The current names imply that V/Line is part of the name. V/Line is the current operator, but the natural name is simply X line (see for example [1] on the V/Line website). Except in the cases of the Gippsland and Warrnambool lines, the disambiguation pages do not disambiguate lines and services with the same name. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 07:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @ThylacineHunter: Pinging as you opened the previous move requests on 1 October that were closed to make this single multi-page move request. Fork99 (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, status quo is perfectly clear, what is proposed would add confusion. Bagufleat (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: The current article names are awkward and unnatural (i.e. not used anywhere else other than Wikipedia; using Geelong as an example to prove this, simply search on Google "Geelong V/Line rail service"), and the proposed names would align with WP:COMMONNAME. Hatnotes would solve any confusion, as they mostly already do at the respective railway line articles. V/Line official timetables and other primary sources, along with secondary sources all largely use the proposed naming format, e.g. Gippsland Times article using "Gippsland Line", Seymour Telegraph article using "Seymour Line", Geelong Advertiser article using "Geelong line", etc to refer to the V/Line service. Fork99 (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Граймс (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the root issue here is that the scope of these articles is unclear. On their website, V/Line divides its network into five sectors corresponding to the five trunk rail routes out of Melbourne. V/Line then groups all of their train services together within these five sectors like this:
- South Western Victoria: Geelong & Warrnambool
- Western Victoria: Ballarat, Ararat & Maryborough
- Northern Victoria: Bendigo, Echuca & Swan Hill
- North Eastern Victoria: Seymour, Shepparton & Albury
- Eastern Victoria: Traralgon & Bairnsdale

Under the above, there are 5 groups of services, and 14 individual services (when including the short service to Deer Park, which is unique in being entirely within Melbourne). However, Wikipedia currently seems to have 7 articles for V/Line rail services, splitting the South Western Victoria group into separate articles for Geelong and Warrnambool and splitting the North Eastern Victoria group into Seymour/Shepparton and Albury. I can guess at perhaps why these distinctions might have been drawn, but they seem inconsistent (e.g. why split Geelong and Warrnambool but keep Seymour and Shepparton together?) and I'm not entirely sure that it is appropriate to be deviating from V/Line's own organisation when describing their services without a clear reason for it.

I would suggest that before setting the articles' naming format, the articles' structure needs to be considered. Is it appropriate to have 14 articles, one for each distinct service? Is it appropriate to stick with the current 7 articles? Is it appropriate to have 5 articles, one for each of the V/Line sectors? Is it appropriate to deal with them all in one list article, as NSW does? I'm not necessarily suggesting one approach over the other, but I suggest that clearing this up would make it clearer how the articles should be titled. Tomiĉo (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been intending to eventually merge the Geelong and Warrnambool articles FWIW, and I'd also like the Seymour and Albury articles merged. Ultimately I prefer 5 articles, the same as V/Line's own distinctions - Ballarat (including Ararat and Maryborough); Bendigo (including Echcua and Swan Hill); Geelong (including Warrnambool); Gippsland (unique in that it's the only service not named after one of its main destinations, Traralgon and Bairnsdale); and Seymour (including Shepparton and Albury). Граймс (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Mackensen: and others: having conducted these moves, two things became apparent. Firstly, some disambiguation pages were no longer required and were WP:G14 deleted. Also, the proposal above for the two "Foo line (service)" moves would have resulted in unnecessary disambiguation, and they were therefore moved to "Foo line", consistent with the others. It would be helpful if you checked incoming links please, for unresolved double redirects, and for any required amendments to Templates to avoid redirects. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]