![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ 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)
@ 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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
Do these have air secondary suspension, with/without ride level control? 58.178.194.21 ( talk) 10:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
Per response to this revert here. Which was reverted by @ Triptothecottage
Also involving these following diffs which were published by me earlier today:
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)
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.
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)