Template talk:WAGR Locomotives

Extra categories

The naxboxes for other states list all rolling stock, ex government and other, in one box rather than a series of smaller ones. Is there a reason to restrict WA's only to ex WAGR locomotives?

Examples:

Mo7838 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your changes. I have therefore reverted them a second time. Articles about, eg, locomotives operated by the various UK private operators have a navbox only for locomotives (eg GWR, LNWR), on which this template is based. It makes no sense to have a navbox lumping WAGR locomotives together indiscriminately with those of the Commonwealth Railways, Pacific National, etc (which cover more than one state), nor with those of private operators like Hamersley Iron (which had no links with the WAGR network) or CBH (which started operations only recently, long after the WAGR had ceased to operate freight sevices). List of Western Australian locomotive classes is a sufficient means of combining links to articles about all of the locomotive classes that have operated in WA. Nor does it make sense to lump WAGR locomotives in with railcars and other rolling stock (the most important printed sources, Gunzburg and May/Gray, don't do it either). I might add that the Qld and (especially) NSW navboxes, in their present form, look to me like dog's breakfasts. Why, eg, is there a section devoted mainly to railway preservation societies in a navbox supposedly about rolling stock? Bahnfrend (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

All posts have been compliant with the WP:BRD process, any suggestions changes are being made without seeking consensus are unfounded.

The rationale for expanding was that with with only a couple entries for Transperth Trains and Transwa, they didn't warrant separate navboxes. Thought better to expand the scope of the existing box than have a series of smaller ones.

The additions made were of rolling stock, that operated exclusively in WA, no additions of CR or PN stock. Fail to see the relevancy that because 2 cites only cover locomotives, that the navbox's parameters should be restricted to these.

Don't think the NSW navbox was a dog's breakfast, but agree some categories were clearly out of scope and it was in need of some consolidating. Appears an editor has been a bit too enthusiastic in expanding its contents, but we are probably all a bit guilty of that from time-to-time. Mo7838 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mo (even though they're blocked for being a sockpuppet). I think that Template:WAGR Locomotives, Template:WAGR Railcars and Template:MRWA Locomotives should be combined, all of the eastern states + New Zealand do it like that. I don't agree with Bahn's comment that it looks like a 'dog's breakfast', it's called a navbox for a reason, so you can navigate to look for information. And in any case, you can use Wikipedia's own tools to hide and collapse parts of the table, so that way only the relevant section(s) are open for the reader to read. @Steelkamp: what are your thoughts? Fork99 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

See Template:Victorian rolling stock for a decently ok looking example. Fork99 (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote in 2014. Mo is a well-known disruptive editor who has used many, many sockpuppets, all of which have been blocked when detected. Additionally, there is an important difference between, on the one hand, WA, and, on the other hand, NSW, Qld, Vic (and NZ). For many years, WA (and SA) have had more than one major operator, whereas until recently NSW, Qld, Vic had only one, govt, major operator (and that is still the case in NZ). The difference is reflected in the list article List of Western Australian locomotive classes, which is, essentially, a whole page of the links that would need to be included, for locomotives alone, in the navbox you advocate. As of today, there are more major operators in WA than ever; they include Aurizon, BHP, CBH, FMG, Mineral Resources, Pacific National, Rio Tinto, Roy Hill, Transperth and Watco Australia, and it makes absolutely no sense to lump all of their locomotives together in one navbox also including links to locomotives of defunct WA operators such as Australian National, Goldsworthy Rail, Hamersley Iron, MRWA, and WAGR/Westrail, much less all of their present day and withdrawn other rolling stock as well. If Mo's and your logic were followed, you might as well create a single navbox for all of the rolling stock ever operated by the major rail companies in England, both present-day and defunct as well - a ridiculous dog's breakfast if ever there were one. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

There are private operators of freight trains in NSW, Vic, Qld, SA, etc too. As an example, Template:South Australian Railways locos does NOT include any private freight locomotives. There's just as many private operators in the eastern states. I'm merely suggesting that the state government's operator WAGR, its predecessors and successors are lumped together. But even then, how many more locomotive types are there for private operators in WA? Fork99 (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bahnfrend: I don't agree with what you said about "putting all of England's rolling stock that I would support" in one navbox. First of all, yes that is ridiculous, just like if you were to do the same for the USA. Two, Australia's states and territories, and New Zealand have never ever ever ever had that many operators or the population or the popilation density required to support that many rail companies. Fork99 (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you keep using the phrase 'dog's breakfast', I have a dog myself, if I were to create a navbox that looks like a dog's breakfast, I don't think I would pre-portion everything and divide up all of the food, oh the vegetables go there, and the meat goes there, oh you know what, the dog biscuit goes on the side. I didn't think so... Fork99 (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Tender Class I?

The I Class in the Tender section links to NZR S Class, a 0-6-0T single fairlie. The class is also in the Tank section. Were the locomotives given a tender at some point? And if that is justification for the I Class being in the Tender section, shouldn't the original C Class also be in the Tender section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diesel 10 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)