Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Transport

WikiProject Australian Transport

Oz Noticeboard | Transport Noticeboard | Requested photos | Members | Categories | To-Do | Article alerts | Tools | Assessments | Popular pages

It is time to remove transport link sections?

I came across a block evading user seemingly obsessed with keeping Woy_Woy_railway_station#Transport_links up-to-date. While one bad apple shouldn't spoil the bunch it did get me to question to validity of these sections. In this case all info comes from the official transit website (incidentally the links are all broken; report), there seems to be no historical perspective and it is difficult for Wikipedia not to mislead readers with old info. I am not sure about guidelines or previous discussions on the matter. Commander Keane (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing when an IP added all the bus information to Perth suburbs and railway station articles. These routes and numbers change frequently and, I think, will potentially become outdated quickly. As a minimum, it should use the Template:As of to clarify how old the information is. But, I think, its pointless information, Wikipedia is not a guide. Calistemon (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I for one am fine with transport link sections, although I make sure the ones in Perth are up to date myself (I prefer describing the routes in prose rather than a list though). This information doesn't really change too often, but it does change every now and then, which will make these sections out of date unless someone maintains them.

Whether the bus routes fail NOTGUIDE I think depends. Leederville railway station only has two bus routes and one of them has received coverage in secondary sources (the Green CAT). On the other hand, Canning Bridge railway station has many bus routes. Some of them have received coverage in secondary sources (such as the 100 and 101 to Curtin University and the bus routes along the freeway), but most have not. I think the paragraph on bus routes there can be shortened (I'm calling myself out). The destinations can be stated, but the individual bus route numbers should not, apart from 100 and 101, which have secondary sources. Steelkamp (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Prose or not, the examples Steelkamp gives can easily be prefixed by an {{as of}} and they are referenced to archivable pdfs. Looks reasonable to me. In Woy Woy railway station the references are using dynamic template that links to a dynamic website. With everything changing like that an {{as of}}, though essential, is impossible to apply. Templates like {{Cite New South Wales transport timetables}} are seemingly violating WP:NOTGUIDE and are a major part of the issue. Any route mentioned in a secondary source can be included, I am not suggesting removing stuff like that. Commander Keane (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I also think the transport link sections are useful in principle. Onward transport is very important for many stations - e.g. Box Hill where over a quarter of passengers arrive by bus - and therefore useful to include. Perhaps this kind of format used on many Melbourne station articles could be a template for others? I agree that the quality and format varies significantly and can be updated but I don't think that's a reason to remove them. Takerlamar (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

At least {{cite PTV route}}, used in Box Hill, has an accessdate field. Doesn't seem to be used often though. These sections are useful as a guide, no question. An example problem is when stand numbers change, at Box Hill it says route 733 leaves from bay 11 but the source doesn't confirm that, does any source state it? Commander Keane (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes there are, I suppose this photo of the interchange map would count as a valid source. Takerlamar (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Nah, that photo's not a reliable source. Its on a self published website. In my opinion, the specific bays that each route leaves from is definitely too much. Steelkamp (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I linked the wrong one - this photo of the interchange bay map: https://railgallery.wongm.com/bus-stops/F151_4113.jpg.html I'm not going to die on a hill on this and I understand where others are coming from, but for what it's worth I think bay numbers and other details are useful for major interchange stations. Takerlamar (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Intercity transfer to Sydney Trains

Attention, mates!

Just to let you know I moved all the pages starting with NSW TrainLink e.g :NSW TrainLink V set into pages starting with New South Wales. Like: New South Wales H set, New South Wales V set and New South Wales D set (bleurgh!).

MrActiniuM (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Transport in NT

Hey guys,

I'm a fairly new-ish Wikipedian and I joined this project like a few days ago. I did want to make the article on transport in NT, which currently doesn't exist yet. Just wanted to ask around to see if anyone else was already writing this up, and also some stuff to keep in mind when writing up the article. Azuuuu (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Confusing Infoboxes in XPT

G'day, guys.

This mainly goes out to @Democfest, the guy who thought of this idea.

Have you realised that there are two infoboxes, both for the Rolling Stock and Power Cars of the XPT? I think it's a bit confusing, especially for new readers. We should just merge the rolling stock one with the locomotive one. I can back this because if you look at the infobox of the Intercity 125, Intercity 225 and British Rail Class 373, which are all trains with a whole seperate power car, there isn't any second infobox. I believe we should just add one infobox.

MrActiniuM ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)