Talk:List of Melbourne railway stations/Archive 1

message: I have created the preliminary page for the WikiProject Melbourne. Please feel free to add something here, as the project is still in formulation. The primrary aim is to fill in the rail network and suburbs. The scope could expand to other elements of the city in future. Those interested in working on the above topics, please add your names to the project and join in the discussion. (There are as yet no templates or guidelines for articles, this will be updated soon). Hypernovean 08:39, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is too long to contain anything else other than those which have actually been approved, IMHO. However, I think other proposed lines/stations would make for quite an interesting article on its own. Ambivalenthysteria 07:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely forgot that there is already a (partial) list of proposed stations and lines (mostly not government-proposed) at List of closed Melbourne railway stations. I don't think that's a good place to have them though. TPK 07:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither. I think they need their own page, to be discussed in more detail. There we could go into the ones that are actively being considered, the ones that the PTUA would like and are potentially feasible, and those that have been proposed, but fit in the pipedream category. Ambivalenthysteria 08:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: List of proposed Melbourne railway stations seems logical enough. TPK 11:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Melbourne

message: I think there needs to be a seperate category for all the Melbourne transport pages. My propsal is a heirachy of :Category:Transportation in Victoria (subsidiary to :Category:Victoria) > :Category:Transportation in Melbourne (subsidiary to :Category:Melbourne) > :Category:Public transport in Melbourne. Should I go ahead and start using this setup? Hypernovean 13:46, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is too long to contain anything else other than those which have actually been approved, IMHO. However, I think other proposed lines/stations would make for quite an interesting article on its own. Ambivalenthysteria 07:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely forgot that there is already a (partial) list of proposed stations and lines (mostly not government-proposed) at List of closed Melbourne railway stations. I don't think that's a good place to have them though. TPK 07:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither. I think they need their own page, to be discussed in more detail. There we could go into the ones that are actively being considered, the ones that the PTUA would like and are potentially feasible, and those that have been proposed, but fit in the pipedream category. Ambivalenthysteria 08:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: List of proposed Melbourne railway stations seems logical enough. TPK 11:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Transport categorization

message: I've modified the station table for stations along the Alamein line (e.g. Ashburton). It's now more streamlined, smaller, and appears in TOC style. I'm aiming for making a template and rolling it out to all stations. See the bottom of User:TPK/Design for some more variations which aren't live yet. T.P.K. 08:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Takes a bit of getting used to, but I think they're quite an improvement. Ambi 09:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I think it's a little bit confusing in this case. :/ Ambi 07:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions? Does it need Next Clockwise and Next Anticlockwise back again? T.P.K. 08:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Otherwise, it's a little bit difficult to tell what it's referring to. Ambi 12:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New station tables

message: Have a look at List of Melbourne railway stations/temp as an example of the above table format in use in the main page. (I fixed the spacing problems, so it should appear properly all the time now). If the colours aren't too glaring, I'll import it to the actual page. Another thing is whether closed stations should be listed (e.g. General Motors). It would only include stations that were on the current mainlines and not on spurs or closed lines, and they would be listed with a (closed) after them. Just a thought, but it might be better to keep open and closed stations completely seperate, I don't know in this case. Anyways... T.P.K. 04:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I probably wouldn't bother listing the closesd stations, as General Motors is the only one that is on a main line and still standing. Ambi 04:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, well it takes a while to convert, so in a few days maybe I'll have it up. T.P.K. 05:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New format