Talk:Timber railway lines of Western Australia

Recent edits

Major edit to improve the structure and overall readability, add much more historucal and contextual background to timber railways in WA, and to delete the list of timber companies which is not relevant to the article topic

Having reverted a recent edit, it is hoped to discuss here, what constitutes this article topic, and whether as a reasonable compromise, the list of timber companies and their railways becomes a separate list, as long as the alternate version of this article is adequately referenced...

JarrahTree 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The article was created, as there were at the time of starting the article, no easily accessible online lists of historic timber operations and their railways/tramways in western australia apart from what is inside the second edition of Austin and Gunzburg.

As there seems to be a perception that the list is not relevant to the topic, I wonder what is? Also, sources relative to the subject that are reliable WP:RS tend to refer back to to Austin and Gunzburg book, as it is probably the most accessible text on the subject. he reason for the 'list' nature of this article in the format it was created, is that the relevant increase in trove references to the companies and operations are relevant as trove is a post- austin and gunzburg item, leading to the situation where what they had captured can be complemented by trove items.

JarrahTree 14:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

The article could be re-titled to 'WA timber companies and their railways', but then the question is whether key people or the sawmills or their towns or their jetties should also be included. I suggest instead the Template:WA Timber industry is a suitable place to put a list of timber companies, allowing the original article to be distilled to its key topic wihtout losing reference to the list of companies. I note Millars has its own page with the list of the companies it merged together, meaning the list can be further distilled without losing content.

As for the rest of the proposed edits, it was to add a lot more background to timber railways (eg Quindalup, Ballaarat, Rockingham-Jarrahdale - none of which was in the original article), and to improve the structure.

I had left as much content as possible, including some parts that didn't make much sense (for example In many cases- timber/sawmilling/logging companies were family businesses, and as a consequence operations continued over time through family relationships, which in turn had effect on timber railway operations as well which doesn't explain what the effect actually was). I left this because I don't have access to the reference material.

--Rund717 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, mhy apologies I must have you at disadvantage as I have easy access to almost all of the items cited or easily at hand.

You raise some good points: -

• key people - m.c. davies for instance - the article is first about him, then his companies and operations.
• sawmills - as any one company/operation had multiple swamill sites, this is another potential expandable but very few would have notability to be able to have stand alone article
• timber towns - wa project already has category timber towns in western australia
• jetties - very little has been done.. I have a very large collection of primary sources about hamelin bay and flinders but very limited wp:rs range
• timber companies - as I have said above, austin and gunzburg have info - the tie in between their info and trove refs is getting better over time

The thing is the template is for articles completed - there are companies that there is not enough to make articles from.

My suggestion is that the current article can be edited and specifically tied into being a list, and you are most welcome to have a more contextual article if you so wish, if you live in perth western australia and are available for the meetups we have I'd even be prepared to offer copies of some of the more salient paper items on loan.

JarrahTree 14:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Did all of the companies in the article contruct railways? If so, the article could be arranged to have a simple description list embedded, perhaps similar to this:

Markup	Renders as
==Timber companies which constructed railways== ===[[South-West Land Division|South West]]=== ; [[Millars Karri and Jarrah Forests Limited|Millars Combine]] : The Millars Combine was a company formed in 1902 from the amalgamation of several earlier timber companies. Millars was a major timber company with an extensive railway network in the South West. ; State Saw Mills : Based in [[Pemberton, Western Australia|Pemberton]] ; third (no text) ; fourth : insert text, etc ===[[Goldfields-Esperance|Goldfields]]=== ; first woodline company : insert text, etc	Timber companies which constructed railways South West Millars Combine The Millars Combine was a company formed in 1902 from the amalgamation of several earlier timber companies. Millars was a major timber company with an extensive railway network in the South West. State Saw Mills Based in Pemberton third (no text) fourth insert text, etc Goldfields first woodline company insert text, etc

This could be a way of retaining the brief description included with some (not all) of the companies.

--Rund717 (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Unclosed italics

The reference in this entry:

• Millars Empire

References

has unmatched italics formatting markup, but it's not obvious where the italics (starting from "Names of the Timber Companies") should end. Could someone with access to the sources please fix the markup. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

where they do... the original title... section is simply showing the change of name - it probably should be in the body of the text somewhere. JarrahTree 11:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned in Thomas 1929 or not?

Currently (and before my edit today) under Timber railway lines of Western Australia § Millars Empire "Sussex Timber company" has two notes/reference, one citing "Thomas, W.C. (1929)" and one saying "Not mentioned in Thomas 1929". Surely they can't both be correct. Could someone with access to Thomas 1929 update the article accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)