Jump to content

Talk:Geelong line

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

Line guide

[edit]

Just looking at the recent addition to the line guide, shouldnt the SG line be on the opposite side of the BG line?--Dan027 (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed as you posted! I cleaned up the alignment of the SG in Melbourne as well as well. The North East is another that needs fixing, swapping sides and the SG crossing loops added as well. Wongm (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geelong V/Line rail service. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geelong 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, 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) 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geelong 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, 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) 22:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geelong 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) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge on the grounds of no consensus and a stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Bairnsdale V/Line rail service has been merged to Traralgon V/Line rail service, Warrnambool V/Line rail service is now the only long-distance service with an article distinct from its "parent" commuter service where the route is shared. The arguments here are essentially the same as at that discussion: V/Line themselves describe the "Geelong line" without distinguishing the Warrnambool service (see page 12) and other reliable sources like the Auditor-General describe the network similarly (page 4). In the interests of verifiability, the article structure should align with what is described in reliable sources, rather than representing original research. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find this convincing. Bairnsdale and Traralgon are fairly close. Warrnambool is more than 3 times further in time by rail from Melbourne than is Geelong. --Bduke (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same. They don't even use the same rolling stock. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not how RS see it. For all intents and purposes the described relationship between the "Geelong line" and the "Warrnambool line" is the same as that between the "Traralgon line" and the "Bairnsdale line". (FWIW I argued against our article on the latter being renamed, because that's not what RS call it, so maybe we're just IARing on this subject...) Triptothecottage (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I think it makes sense to merge the 2. The Warrnambool services are listed in the Geelong timetable as well. Ltdex (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2020 (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 1 October 2024

[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: Superseded by Talk:Albury V/Line rail service#Requested move 3 October 2024. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong V/Line rail service → Geelong line – Under WP:COMMONNAME, the name should be "Geelong line" not "Geelong V/Line rail service" ThylacineHunter (talk) 03:15, 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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albury V/Line rail service which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geelong_line&oldid=1254996909"