Jump to content

Talk:Cranbourne line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cranbourne railway line. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cranbourne railway line. 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) 04:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking this article

[edit]

The article is lacking in crucial information about the line and since the Pakenham line is currently getting a good article nomination i figured it would be best to start reworking on it NotOrrio (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NotOrrio, I'll work on updating the infoboxs & route maps (metro service & actual line), stopping patterns, and station histories (similar to what I have started doing with the Williamstown line). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with how the stations table is shown... Southern Cross (although soon to be removed from this line, it will still be on others) spans 25 rows due to the Train Connections column. This is not easily readable on a pc screen, and totally impossible on a mobile. Changes I'd propose:
  • Both train and other connections will also be shown on both the service and line route maps (still under construction)
  • Accessibility and terrain, although important, are probably better suited to remaining on individual station pages
  • Services and stopping patterns can be moved to a seperate table to better show Local, Ltd Express or Express services
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing this out one solution for this could possible using a table similar to the one seen on the article for the Glen Waverley railway line i have removed the accessiblity and terrain for now, the table was mostly a remodified version of the one seen at Pakenham_railway_line#Stations and I didn't plan on it for being the permanant version. NotOrrio (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some line don't have anything (eg Craigieburn railway line), others have just services (eg Belgrave railway line). My proposal would be use both (as I have started for User:ThylacineHunter/Lines/Metro#Williamstown). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ive made a couple of changes to the stations table
  1. I had split of the stopping patterns on to a seperate table
  2. I re did the connections section to be more compact and user friendly
NotOrrio (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NotOrrio, As I have said earlier, I have been working on an update for both stopping patterns and station histories tables (you can see my progress at User:ThylacineHunter/Lines/Metro#Cranbourne). I've been a little delayed due to Christmas and the time needed to look up correct info (eg opening dates - some on Wiki are wrong). I'm also rechecking the stopping patterns to the soon to be current (starting 6th Jan 2023) timetable (ignoring all the current holiday timetables that change daily). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still need to update the station history table. This require a new template that I'm still working on (this will both fill in open & closing dates and calculate age of item without the need to write each date twice, and also swap age units from days to months to years). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Station Histories table is now done. --- ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do for reworking

[edit]
  • Fix referencing and add references where needed
  • Add Sections
-History, Doing atm
-Services, Doing atm
-Infrastructure 
-Future
  • Add Pictures

NotOrrio (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Clean up

[edit]

I have almost finished on reworking the article as much of the information is already in place, here are the final things to do before the rework is complete and the article is potentially eligable for GA status

  • Fix Grammar
  • Add pictures
  • Make the stations table more user friendly

NotOrrio (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

finished making the stations table more user friendly NotOrrio (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
grammar finished all the article needs now is some pictures NotOrrio (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infoboxes are both done (service and line)
  • Route maps are both done (service and line)
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ive moved the line info box down because when i tried inserting pictures in the history section it kept on breaking NotOrrio (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cranbourne railway line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review to come soon. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a passing editor:
Of 46 references:
  1. 8 references come from Victoria’s Big Build which is a primary source from the project web site of the Government.
  2. 10 or so additional primary references from the Premier, Public Transport Victoria, etc.
  3. Extensive use of authors such as "Victoria, Public Transport", "Build, Victoria’s Big" which aren't actually authors.
Gusfriend (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to quick fail this review due to criterion one of the quick fail criteria. This article is a long way from being broad in its coverage. Specific problems are listed below:

  • The lead is tiny. It needs to be much longer, preferably three or so paragraphs. The lead should make mention of all major sections of the article. That includes history, services, route, infrastructure, future.
  • The history section is tiny. For a line that has existed since 1888, the history should be much longer. There is also an issue with recentism. The 21st century should not make up half of the entire history of this line. I suggest consulting some books as they would have much more information that is not available on the internet.
  • There are a bunch of towns you could link, such as Miraboo North, Port Albert, Toora, Yarram and Dandenong, Leongatha. Same with Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Hughsdale, Clayton and Noble Park stations.
  • There are several instances of distances that have no conversion to miles.
  • The services section talks about current and future services but does not mention past services.
  • The services section does not mention Metro Trains Melbourne.
  • The notes column of the stations table could be removed and replaced with a footnote.
  • The dates in the stations table need to be sourced.
  • Proposed stations has no source.
  • There are a bunch of other sourcing issues in the rest of the article.
  • Some of the information in the rolling stock section is unnecessary on this page and only needs to be on the High Capacity Metro Train page.
  • the rolling stock will consist... Why is this in future tense? Does this mean that there are other trains used on the line currently?
  • Vicsig is not a reliable source.
  • Initially, the Cranbourne line used a fixed-block, three-position signalling system designed for lower frequencies and less services. Was this signalling used all the way back in 1888?
  • Why is the only incident in 2012? Seems like recentism to me.
  • Future could be moved directly below history.
  • Railpage is not a reliable source.
  • The formatting of several references is poor. Some have no website name and Ref 24 has no title.

These are just the issues I could find upon a cursory glance across the article. The main issue is that the article is not long enough, particularly the history, and that some sources are unreliable and some sections lack sources. Steelkamp (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at this feedback and agree with Steelkamp. Also there are a lot of spelling and grammar errors. I recently nominated Pakenham railway line for GA status (and I can see this article has taken heavy 'inspiration' from it (formatting is fine but coping and pasting entire chucks maybe not)). Steelkamp- would you like to review the Pakenham line article and see if it is at GA status? If you do review it and it passes, I would be able to fix this article to align it with the Pakenham line article. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at that article tomorrow. Steelkamp (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! HoHo3143 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
most of the history up to 1995 shouldn't really go into detail since the line opened in 1888 was the south gippsland line with the actual cranbourne line opening in 1995. Atleast in my opinion only the important parts of the south gippsland line's history should go here with additional details going to the seperate South Gippsland railway line article NotOrrio (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. You should also remove Cranbourne east and Clyde from the proposed stations table. Yes they are proposed, but the project hasn't entered extensive planning or construction yet (and probably won't for a long while). HoHo3143 (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ive fixed most of the problems and im pretty sure some others have fixed additonal problems i won't fix a few of the mentioned problems for the following reasons
History section is tiny and half of it is the 21st century- The line that opened in 1888 is the South Gippsland line with the cranbourne line opening in 1995, only the important parts of the south gippsland line should be mentioned here with details mentioned in the seperate South Gippsland railway line. Also I struggled to find reliable sources when researching on the 19th and 20th centuries.
-Since the cranbourne line opened in 1995 any incidents that happened on the line before are considerd as incidents of the south gippsland line
-The rolling stock will consist, this line implies that hcmts are still being delivered
- I won't remove the rail page and vic sig sources for now because no reason was specified as to why they aren't reliable in addition i struggled to find any good replacement sources NotOrrio (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The history for the 21st century needs fixing. 2 sentences don't require their own subheadings. The 21st century needs rewriting with more details and description. Cranbourne Stabling Yards, Lynbrook Station Opening, and Level Crossing Removals sections need to be combined and written in chronological order. The Cranbourne Line Duplication section should stay its own subheading but it needs heavy expansion similar to North South MRT line's woodlands extension. Also the Clyde rail extension needs expansion. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to some of the above:

  • The history section is tiny. For a line that has existed since 1888, the history should be much longer. There is also an issue with recentism. The 21st century should not make up half of the entire history of this line. I suggest consulting some books as they would have much more information that is not available on the internet. - This "line" is only part of the original line. The full line (and it's history is covered under the South Gippsland railway line), the 'Cranbourne line' as such has only been around since 25 March 1995 when electrification of the line occured.
  • The services section talks about current and future services but does not mention past services. - Again this more falls under the South Gippsland railway line.
  • The notes column of the stations table could be removed and replaced with a footnote. & The dates in the stations table need to be sourced. - Working on a new table that will fix this.
  • Some of the information in the rolling stock section is unnecessary on this page and only needs to be on the High Capacity Metro Train page. - Needs to mention that until December 2022, there were both Comeng and Siemens trains used on this line.
  • "the rolling stock will consist of 70..." Why is this in future tense? Does this mean that there are other trains used on the line currently? - Currently the High Capacity Metro Trains (HCMT) are still under construction (only 42 are currently in service).
  • Vicsig is not a reliable source. & Railpage is not a reliable source. - This causes a problem with almost all pages to do with rolling stock, train lines and stations (probably 2,000+ pages) related to trains in Victoria, Australia. There is a big lack of reliable sources for these topics, if sticking to 'propper reliable sources', most of these would not have information after 1980's, and still be at just a stub article stage.
  • "Initially, the Cranbourne line used a fixed-block, three-position signalling system designed for lower frequencies and less services." Was this signalling used all the way back in 1888? - Again this more falls under the South Gippsland railway line.
  • Why is the only incident in 2012? Seems like recentism to me. - Again this more falls under the South Gippsland railway line.
Also there isn't too much information easily available on railway accidents in Victoria (will require going through every page of every available newspaper on Trove)--ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest considering something like the following for the history section (possibly even removing the history heading) as a way to more closely link it to the South Gippsland page?
==The South Gippsland railway line==
Main article: South Gippsland railway line
There was a need for transportation which was provided by the new line.
==Electrification and renaming==
It closed, then opened refreshed and renewed in 1995.
==Recent upgrades==
Some good stuff recently.
Gusfriend (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding the article

[edit]

As promised in this discussion, I will now begin to rebuild the Cranbourne railway line article. I can still spot numerous issues, especially pertaining to spelling, grammar, and referencing, amongst others. I will remove the article from the list of GA nominations and begin work shortly. Once this work has been completed I'll renominate the article for GA status. During this time, preferably do not edit the article, instead you can make suggestions in the talk section of the page. HoHo3143 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i'd suggest moving the last paragraph to the 3rd paragraph spot in the lead section to align with the order of the sections
Also for accessiblity you might want to take a look at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2010L00668 NotOrrio (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do tomorrow. I've rebuilt the entire article except for the history sections, the lead, infobox, and references areas. Thank you also for the suggestion about DDA compliance—I've gone ahead and added it. If you have any more suggestions, leave them in this section. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now finished rebuilding the article and have subsequently nominated it. I've placed the nomination at the top of the talk page as per nomination instructions. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2023

[edit]
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. Sourcing appears in support of the originally proposed move. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cranbourne railway line → Cranbourne line – WP:COMMONNAME swap with redirect ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests, and there is no need to list the redirect, Cranbourne line, to be swapped. A title swap will happen automatically if the Cranbourne railway line article is moved as proposed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:44, 18 July 2023 (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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cranbourne line/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brachy0008 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for choosing to complete the review! The first rebuild of the article was completed by another user with basically no involvement from me. Upon seeing it quick fail, I decided to pick up the article and rebuild it to a higher standard, similar to the other articles that I've rebuilt in the past. Looking forward to working with you as you provide feedback. I'll try and get to the recommendations tonight. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Brachy08 (Talk) 08:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brachy0008 I've completed all of your suggestions and am ready for more (unless its ready to promote) HoHo3143 (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I’m ready to promote. The article looks good so far. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This is the second GA review, after the first one, which was insta-failed. I can see that some of the stuff have been fixed by now, but I might have to let you know, there are lots of sentences that can do with a citation, I’ve noted some with the [citation needed] template. I’ll put this on hold. Don’t worry, you can do this!

Question re citing

[edit]
I have 2 questions:
  • How would you cite this statement: "These works resulted in the re-opening of a section of the South Gippsland line to passengers which became known as the Cranbourne Line." - The original line was known as the South Gippsland line, it closed, then reopened. How does someone go about citing a thing that you can physically see?
      • checkY sourced it with a references from earlier in the paragraph
  • "... the project was abandoned in 2008 by his successor John Brumby." - this may be hard to cite, it is possibly no longer referenced after a certain date and hence listed as abandoned. The lack of any further mention of this may be the reason it is listed as abandoned (eg forgotten about by the government). If this is the case (which can sometimes happen), how can things like this be cited?
      • checkY fixed with an additional reference stating what I said

Other stuff

[edit]
Also, you have inserted "{{" and a "nowiki" tag into the first paragraph of Cranbourne line#21st century. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll delete those Brachy08 (Talk) 04:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have run into the issue of how do you cite something you can physically see a few times now and I'd like to know how to go about citing this sort of thing (eg on another track article "... which had not been repaired as of July 2018.[citation needed]"). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try your best to do it. Brachy08 (Talk) 05:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cranbourne_line&oldid=1204125503"