# Talk:Pakenham line

Hi all, I was reading the Werribee line article and noticed that the line guide on that page includes former stations. Could someone please add the former General Motors station to the line guide on this page? Thanks LivingInTwilight (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am still working on updates for: service infobox and route map, physical track infobox and route map, table of station histories and table of service stopping patterns. I hope to find enough time in the next day (or 2) to finish this. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the service infobox and the route map. Much appreciated! Adding an infobox for the physical track isn't necessary and makes the page very messy and disorganised as it pushes the route map (and other stuff) much further down. Can you add the pakenham east extension to the route map in a grey colour? Adding service stopping patterns would also be great but what do you mean by "table of stations histories"? If that means when did they open, I've already done that. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The unfinished "table of stations histories" can be seen here: User:ThylacineHunter/Lines/Metro#Pakenham. The one already on the page is not very mobile phone friendly... 'Accessibility' is not needed as it is covered on individual station pages, same with 'Terrain'. 'Services' will be their own table. 'Connections' are also shown in the route map so not needed to be duplicated here.
As for not needing a separate infobox for the physical line, I disagree, it is useful to mention things like former stations, former connections, and other things not related to the Metro Trains service (eg. freight sidings), while the 'Service' infobox deals with just the current Metro Trains service. A separate line map attached to this other infobox can also show stations no longer part of the current Pakenham service (Hawksburn, Toorak, Armadale, General Motors). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Station histories and stopping pattern both updated. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Why did you get rid of the station connections??? You've gotten rid of important information. Also the accessibility and station terrain is featured on the North South MRT line article which is a good article. The stopping patterns you added are good and I now agree with the idea of a track infobox. However, the stations bit is unnecessary and messy. Instead former stations should be mentioned on a map (and mark it as closed) and there should be a table like the one on North South MRT line page. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Southern Cross spans 25 rows, Flinders Street spans 15 rows. These are not easily viewed on a mobile phone screen. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Steelkamp who is doing the GA review hasn't highlighted this, and as the article is currently undergoing the review I'd let him decide then we can work from there. He raised no issues before you went and deleted it. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I prefer HoHo3143's stations table over ThylacineHunter's table, however I agree that the train connections are too long. You could try using Template:Collapsible list within each table cell so that the list of transfers only appears if you click "show". Steelkamp (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Good idea. Currently doing it now HoHo3143 (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Finished it! HoHo3143 (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
As for "such-and-such line" having it shown, Bergen Line, Ålgård Line, & Stavne–Leangen line all are good articles without showing station connections, accessibility or terrain, so this is obviously not compulsory to include. I would argue that they don't have too much to do with the 'Pakenham Line' as a whole. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Obviously it's not compulsory to include, however, there isn't a policy that prevents it or any harm caused if it was to be included. Other lines in Melbourne have these details that show what stations connect to. Those articles were approved in 2012 vs North South MRT line in 2020. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I am also working on updating this type of table on all current and former train lines for the state of Victoria, to bring about some consistency between articles. Most of these lines do not currently have any table (eg Werribee railway line). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok. That's good, however I don't know how important it is to include former stations. These should be mentioned on the route map. A good example is the Glen Waverley railway line map. It mentions former stations where they are linked to their respective pages. Information under the stations section should only include current and confirmed future stations. If you do go and update all the lines, I think it would be best if you do something similar to what has been done on this page, showing train, tram, bus, and coach connections as well as accessibility, terrain and opening dates which is inline with some of the Singapore articles that have been promoted to GA status recently. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Most former lines would have stations with no connections, and as they have been removed, no accessibility or terrain info. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Most of those articles are stubs, and if they were better quality they would mention the terrain and former connections. Accessibility would only be mentioned if the station was still operating past 1992. An example would be Mont Albert or Surry Hills stations, both of which will be closed next year when Union station  opens. When this is the case, these articles will still mention terrain, connections, and accessibility.  HoHo3143 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Adding an infobox for the physical track isn't necessary and makes the page very messy and disorganised as it pushes the route map (and other stuff) much further down. I agree with this. Steelkamp (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand for this line, it (and the former stations on the line) can be covered by the continued former line (Orbost). This would also work for Alamein (Outer Circle), Cranbourne (South Gippsland) & Lilydale (Healesville/Warburton).
I'm unsure what the process would then be for service lines that are the full length (Belgrave, Flemington Racecourse, Frankston, Glen Waverley, Hurstbridge, Sandringham, Stony Point, Upfield & Williamstown). And then there's the complexity of what to do with: Craigieburn (old version of North East - now a different gauge), Mernda (Whittlesea - they are merged), Sunbury (Deniliquin - merged with operational Echuca), Werribee (former Geelong line - now runs differently). This is without even looking at V/Line services.
I would put forward that all these lines in Victoria, Australia should try to have a similar layout to show a unity of the lines in one location. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that you need the information inside an infobox. All of the information inside that infobox can be included in the railway line map, this history section, and other areas of the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You should probably use the referance "Anderson-All Stations" over "www.ptua.org.au/2018/08/03/railway-stations-years-opened". Anderson-All Stations is a published book (and therefore a reliable source), unlike the other which is a website. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I help bring this article from GA to FA status over the coming week(s). During this time I will be taking inspiration from other FA classed railway line articles. NotOrrio (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, and good luck. Some tips before you take this to FAC:
Request a copy edit at the Guild of Copy Editors. The prose standard for FAC is very high and doing this will help you get there.
Make citation formatting consistent.
Borderline reliable sources might not be accepted at FAC. The sourcing standard there is higher than just "reliable", the criteria says "high-quality reliable sources". I would get rid of the mirage news references.
Steelkamp (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@NotOrrio a few extra things that need to be noted:
For the depots section, if you want this to be a FA you'll need to mention all the other depots that are in use by the line (drivers depots, Westall, other stabling facilities, and more). I didn't add these to my GA nominations as they are complex to research and aren't overly important.
The PIDS section needs to be changed to mention that basically every station now has the flatscreen TV PIDs rather than the dotted ones (you can mention that stations that are going to be rebuild don't have them yet)
The operators could go into some more history and detail (what's there is fine for a GA but should be stepped up for a FA)
Hope this helps. If you have any questions let me know! HoHo3143 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
As the PIDS section will almost be an identical generic section for every Melbourne service, it may be better to update that section on the Railways in Melbourne article, which could then be added to each service using {{Excerpt}}. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I support the points made by User:Steelkamp. In addition, I have comments and suggestions about changing the structure of the article, to improve the flow of the content and the readability of the article:
relocate the content currently under the heading "Future" well down the article, to be the last level 1 heading before References. It is distracting to have this future-focussed or prospective development content so early in the article, when the basics of the subject have not yet been fully covered. Also, I recommend changing the heading title of this section to "Planned developments"
Promote the content currently under sub-headings: Route, and Stations to new level 1 headings, and move these up the article so that they are the second and third level 2 headings respectively. The content of these two sections is important descriptive/ geographic content that needs to be placed early in the article to give the reader a full introduction in a logical sequence, before the detail of services and operations is discussed.
"Planned stations" should be merged into the "Planned developments" I have discussed above
Remove the "Main" template link under 21st century.  This link is not needed, and the article should not have a link to itself.
I wish you every success with getting this article to FA status...Marshelec (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I do have some concerns re reliable sources. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't like to count so called "amature" pages like VicSig, victorianrailways.net and other similar pages as reliable. This can cause issues with being able to source information on Melbourne's railway lines as some information that they are able to source is not easily accessible to the public. There are some official documents that these people have had special access to over the years.
I don't want to put a stop to your pursuit, just let you know what issues you may run into and I wish you luck on this task. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
When I chose the structure, I followed the Singapore MRT line articles as a reference point. If you need any assistance, let me know and ill try and help. HoHo3143 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@NotOrrio in my opinion, this would be a better structure, as it organises it better than what you've made it now.
History
  19th century
  20th century
  21st century
Route
  Stations
      Planned stations
Service
  Stopping Patterns
  Operators
  Patronage
Infrastructure
  Rolling stock
  Depots
  Signalling
  Stations (this bit would talk more about accessibility and the physical stations rather than the services bit from above)
      Customer Service
      Accessibility
      Passenger Information Displays
Future
  Metro Tunnel
  Melbourne Airport rail
  Pakenham East line extension
  Level Crossing Removals
References
External links HoHo3143 (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Support. This looks good to me. The content will flow in a way that will help the reader..Marshelec (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I also think this would be the best layout for any future work to turn an article into a FA. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)