Jump to content

Talk:Metro Trains Melbourne

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

Why?

[edit]

great to hear of a new train mob running the system. but an 8 year contract! Hope they are going to awesome like Connex. Connex is awesome. --121.220.78.249 (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media "criticism" over the top

[edit]

The article says that Metro Trains "attracted criticism during its first few days of operation....". To me these criticisms are examples of "make news" behaviour by the media. The types of incidents that occured would not have been unexpected by any sensible observer. The criticisms say a lot more about the media than they do about Metro Trains. I think we need to be careful about putting garbage from the media into Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and Controversy section is continuing to grow. Some of the sections within this heading have no citation (just added citation required tag to Rating. I agree that some of the criticisms being added lack merit, some may lack neutrality. Should we consider removing some of this, or try and restore some balance to this part of the article? Axdya (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undid revision 530722469 by 120.147.17.220. This revision added a new subheading under "Criticism and Controversy" regarding a driver shortage on New Year Eve 2012-13. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this was a significant "criticism" or "controversy". Buses replace trains regularly and, furthermore, there is no evidence of any major disruption. I am interested in hearing others' views on this type of thing. Axdya (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. HiLo48 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undid recent revision by removing "Inaccurate service update during major disruption" section. Like the previous examples, there is no evidence to suggest this was a significant criticism or controversy. The cited source does not actually support the claims which were made. It looks like some people are using this page to voice all their complaints about Metro - no matter how trifling they are. As always, I am interested in hearing others' views. Personally, I think that we should avoid this page becoming a Metro Trains complaint forum. Axdya (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Branded / comonly known as / trading as... What?

[edit]

Many different ideas on this part of the article. My view.....

The trains will be labelled Metro. That legally means that Metro Trains Melbourne is trading as Metro. There hasn't been enough time for a common name to evolve. Cattle are branded. Not trains. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that two years have passed since Metro took over from Connex, I think that it is safe to say that Metro Trains Melbourne is known as Metro. I suggest that we update references to Metro Trains Melbourne throughout this article to just Metro. Does anybody else have a view on this? Axdya (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


From 30 November 2009, the network will always be known as Metro. If, in 8 years time, Metro Trains Melbourne are given the flick, and another mob comes to operate it, regardless of who they are, the network will be known as Metro. "Metro Trains Melbourne" are the operator of "Metro", but they are not one and the same. This is what us Metro staff are told. Maybe I should get an account here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.133.211 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Flickr.

I'll note that I have gotten in touch with zed.fitzume, who has kindly provided me in the past with images such as this Comeng train in M>Train livery, and I'm guessing would be more than happy to provide us with more. I expect to hear back from him before Friday. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Zed is relicencing this Siemens, and I've also requested images if possible of Comeng's, Hitachi's and X'trapolis's. Should have these by tonight (Dec 25) AEDST, and up before I go. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a better picture for the IEV please? I know the IEV102 is converted from a VLine passenger carriage (as seen in the photo) but that's just a regular passenger carriage. There's also the IEV100. I don't know who owns them both though Fauzi (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stub??

[edit]

This article is NOT a stub. It is too long to be counted one and and there are shorter articles than this.

Agreed. Removed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality discussion...where?

[edit]

A notice on the article page says that the neutrality of this article is disputed and says "please see the discussion on the talk page". I've read the talk page and I can't specifically see a discussion about neutrality. Could someone help me out please? Bluewave (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The POV tage was added three days ago by User:Biatch, with nothing mentioned in the Edit summary, and nothing was added to this Talk page to explain the user's concerns. All editors are free to modify the article and to discuss it here. I have removed the POV tag. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to help out with the backlog of articles tagged as "Category:Articles with minor POV problems" and this was on the list. By removing the tag, it should now be de-listed, which is great. If there really are POV concerns, they can only be addressed if they are raised on the talk page so, if anyone wants to re-add the tag, could they please help out by listing their specific concerns here. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of punctuality table

[edit]

I'd like to propose that the punctuality/performance table be deleted from the Punctuality section. The table hasn't been updated since August 2014. I believe that it is an intricate level of detail which doesn't add value to the article, this table is more like a scoreboard which I think can be safely removed. Does anybody have concerns about proceeding with deleting this table? Axdya (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As no concerns have been raised, I have proceeded with the deletion of this table. Axdya (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Metro Trains Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 11:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Metro Trains Melbourne. 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) 05:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken footnotes

[edit]

Footnote 9 ( Gardiner, Ashley (1 September 2009). "Melbourne's train system name changes from Connex to Metro". Herald Sun. Retrieved 14 January 2010.), though it appears to refer to a specific article at the Herald Sun, is redirected to their main page, making it basically useless.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Metro Trains Melbourne. 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) 22:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Fauzi: I don't really understand your rationale for making the changes you did. It is far more informative to a reader to be presented with a link to the underlying rail network that Metro actually operates in the early prose of the article, than to be offered a link to a type of rail network which may or may not actually apply here (it's unsourced and therefore difficult to verify) and have to wait until "See also" for a link to the Melbourne network. As for a link to V/Line, MOS:NOTSEEALSO tells us that as a "general rule", we need not repeat links from the body of the article; since V/Line is already linked twice here I see no need for it. Commuter rail in Australia could get a run, since there is no justification for including it in the body. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to put in a bit of consistency with the other rail networks around Australia, and also correct the statement where Metro Trains is THE railway network in Melbourne when V/Line also operates metro services within Melbourne. Also I would like to see if I can put this system on level with other equivalent systems around the world as it's not a metro. I guess I will do a bit more research. I will yield from making further changes to this page until I have read more and understand the Wikipedia style guide. I still consider myself an amateur editor here so there's still a lot from others like you.Fauzi (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fauzi: I think that's a very fair comment and in fact I just spent today trying to clarify the relationship between Metro and V/Line services at the Railways in Melbourne article. What about: Metro Trains Melbourne is the franchise operator of the electrified suburban passenger service on the Melbourne rail network? Triptothecottage (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Triptothecottage: Yes, that seems fair. Thank you for doing that and taking the time to find the relevant sources. Might look through to see if there are further issues later in the week. I am trying to figure out if I can source a proper commons photo for the IEV. Fauzi (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Melbourne KiloMetro" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Melbourne KiloMetro has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 12 § Melbourne KiloMetro until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Map

[edit]

Hi, The interactive map linked to on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Trains_Melbourne#/map/0

is missing the Sandringham and Glen Waverly lines.

Has this been done for some reason? 27.33.225.167 (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Gracchus250 as map creator. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro_Trains_Melbourne&oldid=1234379722"