User talk:The Fulch/Archive1

Sydney Railway Stations

Instead of just tagging everything as unreferenced, can you help us out by adding some sources. There's a great site, New South Wales Railways which has information about opening dates, etc., and shows that they are historic. That's more helpful than just tagging everything, as it involves double the work. JRG 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get this message? JRG 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously.The Fulch 06:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the referencing. Looks good. JRG 09:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walgett railway line, New South Wales

Hi The Fulch,

I am a little concerned with the above article and the other closed rail line articles you have created over the past few days. I was intending to nominate these articles for deletion through the Articles for deletion process but thought I would ask you your plans first. Unless you are planning to expand these articles in the immediate future, it may not be a great idea to create one line stubs that provide no additional context for the reader that cannot be found in the title. Cheers, Mattinbgn/^talk 07:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my intention to expand upon all of them, some already have been. I need a little bit of time, however. The Fulch 10:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem. Just so you are aware, it is likely that as the articles are at the moment, they are likely to be nominated sooner or later by someone. Good luck with them. Cheers, Mattinbgn/^talk 10:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing wrong with one line stubs - I'll vigorously oppose any deletion of these articles. Just ignore that. JRG 10:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this from the discussion at WP:AWNB. A 1-sentence stub is often too small, three sentences is often about the minimum to contain more information than the title and context of the link that led there. In this case, could you please add links for the ends of each line - both the town and the line(s) it connects to. This would allow readers to navigate the rail network, and find out where places are connected. Then add links from main lines to what branches connect off it (and at which towns). This would then give enough context to make the articles more helpful to readers who come without such context initially. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Branch Lines

Hi there - thanks for your work on the branch lines - can I ask where you're getting your sources from though? Your diagram on the Main West has at least two stations (Tarana & Geurie) which you've labelled as "Closed", even though they are very much still open and receive two XPT services every day between Sydney and Dubbo. The Medway Quarry Branch is (I think) also still open, yet it's been labelled as closed. You've done some great work, but I'd be careful with your sources. Also, with your diagram for the Main West, if you're including every closed station you should include the two old zig zag deviations that previously existed at Lapstone and near Lithgow. JRG 10:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm happy to be corrected for any errors. By the way, I disagree with how you have changed back the CityRail lines on the template- I think these template should be on infrastructure- ie the individual lines, not how cityrail markets their service patterns.10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fulch (talk • contribs)

We've already had this debate (several times in fact) and it was decided to keep them in lieu of actually colouring the text. The lines are more than just stopping patterns - it is how they are identified by the average person, which is how articles should be named and expressed according to Wikipedia guidelines instead of names known by only a few. I'm happy to have both (and it's already been shown that both of them can be filled with information quite easily), but if you want to only have infrastructure articles and references in the table, theoretically articles like the Blue Mountains Line and Hunter Line, which aren't lines at all, should be deleted. That isn't constructive, so I think we should just leave it as I have done - but thank you for your edits, it looks a lot better now. I hope you didn't mind shrinking the text - it will be too big on some pages with 100% text size. I'll fix the deviations on the Main West - I'm working out how to do it. JRG 10:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree- I don't think there is anything about 'East Hills Line' or 'Richmond Line' that the average person woudn't understand. In fact- I was thinking of removing Blue Mountains and Hunter lines as well as they are not technically lines- but service terms for sections of lines. We aren't going to agree on this so I would be interested in what 3rd parties think.The Fulch 11:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is how the articles have been written - and there has been too much work done to reverse that now. I and others wrote a Featured Article after this was agreed upon, although I acknowledged the makeup of the actual lines in the article. JRG 12:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - should explain more - what I mean is that the Richmond line is seen more as a part of the "Western Line" than a separate line in itself; as is the Cronulla Line and the Eastern Suburbs Line. I'm more than happy to have separate articles, but as this is an encyclopedia for everyone, not for rail enthusiasts, we should use both terms. JRG 12:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of a way to link in the articles, then please tell me as I'll accept that as a compromise, but as of now the articles have been written with their CityRail nomenclature in mind - so the Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Railway Line is written as the main article, with the Eastern Suburbs Line and Cronulla Line as subsidiary articles that come off that one; same with the Airport & East Hills Line; and I would do the same with the Richmond Line except I haven't got around to it. Since we've had featured articles written that we can't make massive edits to, we can't really change that setup, so I'd prefer to leave it that way, but what we do in the article is up to you, as long as the CityRail lines are included in some way. JRG 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

closed or major bypass?

Could you please comment and clarify the issue I've just found at Talk:Stockinbingal- Parkes railway line, New South Wales. The page says it's closed, but Stockinbingal, New South Wales seems to suggest it's a major route. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User subpages

Hi TheFulch - just a tip - instead of just blanking your user subpages as you did the other day, you should use the tag {{db-user}} as this has the page deleted from Wikipedia's servers and saves them space. I suggest you do it for all pages you no longer need. JRG 13:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trackplans

I think the trackplans are useless when all it shows is there are two tracks and nothing else, which is the case here and in various other stations - and I will delete all of these in turn - the diagram adds nothing to the article and is a waste of bytes in the article. The information expressed in the diagram is already (and better) explained by the wording in the article. Where the track layout is more complicated, say in the case of Wolli Creek, then a track diagram is warranted. There's also the point that none of them are referenced, but I'll ignore that for the time being. JRG 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please use a user's talk page - don't just undo things. JRG 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have spoken to the creator of the trackplans before deleting his/her good work on their talkpage, hypocrite. I think some discussion is warranted before you go deleting these trackplans willy-nilly.The Fulch 11:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not the author. Furthermore I'd like to add that in my humble opinion that the trackplans are not encyclopedic, the reasons being is that a normal reader (which is not a gunzel) would either not understand what the trackplan is about, or doesnt want to know about it and only wants to find basic information (eg History, Openining dates, types of service). --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but isn't reading an encyclopaedia about learning new things? MrHarper 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]