Talk:V/Line VLocity

Lines vs services

@Raleigh98:, I understand your reasoning for changing links from lines to services but I think we need some consistency here. Various discussions (see Talk:Rail transport in Victoria) have failed to come to consensus on how to tell the difference, but if we can get a local agreement here it would be good for the article. Here's my thinking: in the Operations section, where we discuss the actual tracks on which the trains run, the link should be to the line; in the Infobox and elsewhere where we discuss the services/timetables the trains fill, the link should be to the service. I'm going to do that now, but I'm happy to discuss it with you here. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Triptothecottage (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Citation style

@Kharkuvz: Thanks for your contributions to the article. I'd just like to politely request that in future you use the WP:CS1 templates for references in this article; per WP:CITEVAR references should respect the established style in the article, which here is CS1 after my cleanup late last year. I've also added back a little bit of information about the original contract which there was no obvious reason to remove. In future, it would be helpful if you used edit summaries to communicate the reasons for your changes to other editors. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Vlocity VL61 at North Shore.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

VR76?

@Anothersignalman and Gracchus250: To be frank I don't think the Wikipedia audience cares what they're called in the fleet plan. It only becomes relevant to us if we start to make the distinction in articles, which we should not do until/unless the distinction is made in secondary sources. Practically speaking that means if Newsrail or similar publications start to use VR76, for example, instead of VL76, we should too, but until that happens the coding is of no concern to us. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair point re coding, and good to have some sort of guideline. I suppose the main point I was trying to communicate is that V/Line is avoiding mixing the new sets with the old sets. Anothersignalman (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be confident a publication will cover that it good time. Until then, it need not be in our article. WP:NODEADLINE. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Top speed of 210 km/h?

I can't find a good source for this anywhere. Just this one article, which may well be basing its claim off Wikipedia. thorpewilliam (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Found the claim repeated at Railvolution (no idea how reliable it is, but a quick search shows the site is cited frequently within Wikipedia). The wording looks suspiciously like it came via Wikipedia also. I'd suggest that for a claim like this, we need to be pretty strict on reliability of sources - an actual engineering specification would be ideal. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

History of Comeng Vol. 5 says nothing about a higher design speed in its quite detailed chapter on the design of the VLocity. In fact, I was reminded of the fact that their original name was "VLocity 160". There's also a thread on railpage (not reliable per se, but frequently a good indicator of the truth) where someone speculates that the trains could reach 200km/h if the transmission were modified with gear ratios for higher speeds, which would be a major overhaul. I'm ready to call bullshit on the 210km/h claim, without prejudice to reintroduction if someone can find a decent source. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspension

Do these have air secondary suspension, with/without ride level control? 58.178.194.21 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"VR" designation

The article shows that a handful of units are classified as VR instead of the ordinary VL (or VS for standard-gauge) but gives no explanation for why. I see that this was brought up back in August 2019, but without resolution. Is there any way this can be addressed now? XAM2175 ^(T) 21:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This V/Line web site discusses the various VLocity configurations. https://www.vline.com.au/Fares-general-info/On-board Pvda64 (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

VR designations are mentioned on the Vicsig VLocity page. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Is there anything that qualify as a reliable source for that fact, though? XAM2175 ^(T) 13:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pvda64: How does that page answer my question? XAM2175 ^(T) 13:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding on earlier separation of References, External links and removing Explanatory notes and Citations, per the revert by this diff

Per response to this revert here. Which was reverted by @Triptothecottage

Also involving these following diffs which were published by me earlier today:

• 1235960360
• 1235960513
• 1235960803
• 1235960970
• 1235961101
• 1235961190

However, I carefully read MOS:REFERENCES, which the explanatory footnotes says Explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article

Is that meant for footnotes or something, not citations?

Is there a reason why they are awkward, is it because they are unreliable sources or is there another reason why?

Also, there are some likely unreliable sources in this article too.

I have also noticed in this article that there is a lack of citations, including how many units are in service, the date it entered service etc. although, the information it originally came from was definitely Vicsig, more specifically here. Although, there has been some talks at WT:AUSTS, more specifically at this conversation in Archive 1 here that it doesn't meet the WP:FANSITE policy and also was considered to likely be an unreliable source, since it is self published and a rail enthusiast website, published way back in 1997. Although, the problem will be that a mass of content will have to be removed like the number of sets that have entered service and most of its information. So we'll keep it unless a reliable source could be found. But in some cases, some people see Vicsig as a reliable source.

I will explain the reason why I think it should be separated and hear from other contributors about their opinion. Here is one reason:

Most of the editors on Wikipedia notice that on most Wikipedia articles, they have Notes, References and External links separated from each other (unless there are pages outside Wikipedia that should be listed under "External links", per WP:EL) References in articles normally have the list of citations in the article itself and the Notes section having the number of notes citations in the article itself as well.

Thanks PEPSI697 (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as the Vicsig stuff goes – yes, by all means I agree it should be sourced more reliably, and if that’s not possible then removing it should be considered. Much of it is WP:CRUFT anyway.

This is separate to the citation style issue. MOS:REFERENCES supports the style of this article, which has three sections:

• Explanatory footnotes,
• Citation footnotes linking specific information to specific sources,
• References which are either cited in short form in the notes (e.g. the accident reports) or are general references not used in specific citations.

Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last.

Your edits began by removing the set of full citations, apparently not realising they were referred to in short form in the citation notes; when this didn’t work you renamed the section “External links”; shuffled the reflist into a different section; and removed the explanatory note list altogether without explanation. The overall effect was one wrongly headed section, inaccessible explanatory footnotes, and no improvement to the article, so I reverted.

None of this latter part has anything to do with the reliability of sources. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

However, I understood why you've reverted my edits, just a lot of waste I did there! I know I went a little bit unrelated there about sources. Because I noticed that this article had a lack of sources in some places. Obviously, I could have explained in the edit summary why I've removed the explanatory footnotes. But I decided to start a discussion to give out the reason why I did it since in your edit summary you've recommended me to open a discussion for those major changes if they wanted to be done. PEPSI697 (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. So why do you think this needs to happen? Triptothecottage (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really specifically need to happen. I decided to withdraw these major changes now. We can keep the article as it is. PEPSI697 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as the Vicsig stuff goes – yes, by all means I agree it should be sourced more reliably, and if that’s not possible then removing it should be considered
The main problem with this is there is a lack of Victorian railway (amongst other topics) related WP:RS material post 1990's. Some of the material that is technically WP:RS can't be used as it is then WP:COPYRIGHT issue, as WP:COPYRIGHT is a Policy but WP:RS is just a Guideline, "trusted sites" like VicSig can be seen as acceptable.
Another main issue is the fact we are trying to document something that has the potential to change daily. There are not many non-fan sites that cover the fluidity that this topic requires. Sure we can limit the information to the official statements, (and while we are at it, why not turn this dynamic project that is Wikipedia, into a print version and release a new edition every month. Sure as soon as you print it, it will be out of date, but apparently it isn't too important to keep things up to date). --ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Vicsig needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. For instance, for line infrastructure it's sourced to Lambert and Jungwirth (or WONs themselves for the last two decades), so I think it should be considered broadly reliable. For rollingstock and fleet lists though, it really is just a WP:FANSITE with sporadically updated info from what I presume is a combination of Chris' industry knowledge/connections and personal observation. It's the best source on such things... but it probably doesn't rise to the WP standard. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The silly thing is, if Chris were to publish this information into a book (with an ISBN) then this information changes from WP:FANSITE to WP:RS (as with Peter Vincent's pjv101.net being backed up by the Brief History Books he co-wrote). It is interesting that we editors prefer a published book that has a potential for mistakes over a properly researched site (were there is a way to fix some of these little errors).

For example; I have a copy of a book "Sawdust and Steam" by Norman Houghton (propper book with ISBN by a reputed author in the railway field) and yet there is a mistake on page 15 "... the 2-4-0 WT C class..." he either means 2-4-0WT N class or the 4-4-0WT C class. It is a simple mistake, and yet not too simple to fix once a book has been published. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)