# Talk:Belgrave line

I won't change it, because I know I won't win this one, but Ferntree Gully station was renamed Fern Tree Gully in 1972, and has never been formally changed since, although the two-word version probably appears on all timetables and signs by now.
And it is debateable whether Belgrave has a passing loop.  Yes, trains can "pass" there, but a passing loop?  On the other hand, being pedantic about it likely leads to awkward sentences.
Philip J. Rayment 14:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Irregardless of the 'official' name, it's Ferntree Gully on all the maps, timetables, destination boards, signs, and anything else presented to the public, and I'm sure it's known as Ferntree Gully to everyone that uses it, and to boot, the suburb itself is officially Ferntree Gully. It could be noted on the station's page though. As for Belgrave, it does at least have an island platform, which is why I added it to the list. Trains can pass one another, from a certain point of view, but I don't want to get pedantic either. T.PK 10:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belgrave railway line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002173929/http://www.puffingbilly.com.au/fan/heritage/on_this_day.htm to http://www.puffingbilly.com.au/fan/heritage/on_this_day.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The interactive map doesn't seem to actually display the line information? This may be an issue with some update to the mapping system?
For completeness, The Mernda Line's map is still fine Tascord (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter are you able to add the service frequency to the infobox (one thing that you forgot)? HoHo3143 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Still need to double check this with the Lilydale as to noting additional services from Ringwood only trains. These two are more complexly mixed than the Cranbourne/Pakenham ones were. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok all good. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@ThylacineHunter I have now finished rebuilding this article. I'll wait for you to add the service frequency before I nominate it for GA status HoHo3143 (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Glen Waverley railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Just noting the image request where it asks for "better quality (for the main image)". I'm wondering if anybody has any insights on what "better quality" might look like. I'm happy to head out and take some snaps.  Rg9444 (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)