Talk:Deer Park–West Werribee railway line

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Victoria / Transport Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Deer Park–West Werribee railway 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Mid-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.

Archives

Archive 1

Created this article, 15-May-2009 Mwyres (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underground sections?

Is any part of this RRL going to be underground or in tunnel? 58.179.201.131 (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've added clarification that this is completely a grade and above grade project. --Biatch (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove North Melbourne station as stop on map

As this will not be a stop on the Regional Rail Link.--Biatch (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The article reads in an overly non-neutral tone. There's bias against the project and an unnecessarily long and unsourced controversy section, obviously written by concerned and opposed stakeholders. It should be rewritten and sourced to give fair, relevant criticism while also describing the benefits and reasoning behind the project. JamesA ^>talk 11:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the user above says, this article is littered with nonsense. My edit to remove a sourced, but nonsensical and irrelevant, claim was reverted for no other reason but it was sourced. That's no reason to include something. "Human cost" in the normal sense refers to loss of life in a war. It's not Wikipedia's job to call this construction project a war. Any mention of acquisitions and emotional distress should go under controversy, not "Costings". That's just ludicrous. 118.209.60.12 (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for reverting was not simply that it was sourced. It's that there is obviously more than one view on including that content, yours and that of the person who put it there. To not include human costs just because YOU don't want to is not the way Wikipedia works. Your post above is not very helpful. Nobody called this a war except you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the content is very important and should be included. I just don't think it should be duplicated where it doesn't belong. The 'costs' section is obviously about budgetary resources and money, not about controversy and resident concerns. Information should be organised in the relevant sections. Wikipedia shouldn't be using such emotive terms like 'human costs'. It should be about the removal of houses, the forced displacement of people, the negative effect on the community. Per WP:EUPHEMISM, 'human cost' must be removed, as well as the various other neutrality problems in the article. 118.209.60.12 (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]