Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Melbourne/Archive 3

message: Hey there! I'm think about doing some northern suburb articles (the ones in the City of Whittlesea). I think I can add more information and picutres as well. I'll start today (Sunday, 30th October 2005). Uncke Herb 01:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere out that way there's a historic village. I can't remember what it's called, and I've never heard anything about it other than seeing it in the Melway. It's tucked away in the middle of the suburbs. I've always been curious about itmeaning to venture out there. Do you know about it? Cnwb 05:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could that be Westgarthtown? Uncke Herb 09:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's it. I just Googled it  and created a stub; Westgarthtown, Victoria. Thanks. Cnwb 10:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking on some Northern suburbs 

message: Well I've done some archiving. Feel free to move back anything which might have still been active.
I also have to say, coming back here after a bit of an absence, the number of Wikipedians listed as participants here is staggering! Melburnians, give eachother a pat on the back! :)
More seriously though, it seems to me that this WikiProject isn't as much organizing a concerted effort to create Melbourne-related articles as it was meant to be, but is more of a meeting ground for Melburnians, with everyone doing they're own bit as they see fit. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's not much in the way of collaboration. Maybe we should try and focus our energies on one or two things, rather than this whole rambling WikiProject, at least for a while. What about getting Melbourne onto the Main Page? Anyone else agree, or have I just not seen these things happening while I've been off? TPK 09:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that'd be a really good start. We're still doing in Canberra a lot of the work that we did for Melbourne a year ago, but that project is now about as active as we used to be, and it's so far having quite a bit of success with informal collaborations - Canberra was featured just this week with basically unanimous support. Particularly now that we've covered most of the breadth issues, it seems like the next best step would be to start working on depth. Ambi 23:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some odds and ends 

message: * This article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnt Bridge, Victoria. It isn't on the Geoscience webpage nor in Melways. However, it Googles well and appears to be a part of Croydon, Victoria. For the moment, I have voted to merge. However, I would welcome input from members of the Wikiproject. Capitalistroadster 04:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Burnt Bridge, Victoria]]

message: I've recently created a Connex Melbourne page with various tidbits of info.  It's got some good info, but could use some more in parts imo.  Just thought i'd announce it here in the hope that people don't link to the main Connex page, but rather the local one (i've already cleaned the existing links).  cheers! Jackk 07:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Connex Stations

message: The past few weeks, I've been working on a number of articles about Melbourne's bus network (for example Buses in Melbourne, National_Bus_Company, and the List of Victorian bus companies. Given that one of the aims of Wikiproject Melbourne is improving articles about Transport in Melbourne, I'm wondering if there would be any merrit in adding the articles about Melbourne's bus network to the WikiProject? Related to this point, is there merrit for an article compiling the overall history of Melbourne's transport (or Melbourne's public transport), or perhaps doing an article on the (now defunt) Met (rather than having 'the Met' redirect to Metlink)?
The second point I want to raise is about Wikibooks. As you may be aware, Wikibooks is Wikipedia's sister project, which seeks to create open source textbooks for school and university students. I'm wondering if there would be any merrit, or any interest, in either:
a) Creating some textbooks dealing within Melbourne (for example, a textbook on the History of Melbourne? or on local government in Melbourne? Urban planning policy in Melbourne?)
b) Fixing existing textbooks to VCAA standards, or
c) Further developing coverage of Melbourne in existing textbooks (for example the the textbook on Australian History).
And the third point is about another Wikipedia sister project, called Wikinews. Should we create a Wikinews bureau to create news about Melbourne?
Any assistance or feedback would be greatly appreciated :)
Cheers,
AmishThrasher 12:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is merit in both proposals (Wbooks& Wnews), but they seem incredibly overwhelming to me. Books because of the pressure to be up to scratch and news because of the pressure to be up to date. I think they're both commendable ideas, but I would decline both because WP is enough for me, at the moment. Maybe once WP:MELB attracts a kind of critical mass? (btw, great work on the transport articles and the templates!) cheers --pfctdayelise 09:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buses in Melbourne; Wikibooks on Melbourne; Melbourne WikiNews Bureau? 

message: I've added a number of new templates. 
* Template:MelbourneBuses
* Template:MelbourneBikePath
* Template:Cycling in Melbourne
- AmishThrasher 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Templates 

message: Hello from a Sydney-sider! In the spirit of co-operation between our two great cities, an extensive table of Melbourne suburbs has been added at List of Melbourne suburbs/table. The quick primer on using it is this: Ideally everything in columns 1, 2, 5, and 6 should be blue; and everything in columns 3 and 4 should either be red, or if it is blue it should be checked to make sure that it is either a redirect page, or a disambig page that includes a link to the Melbourne suburb of the same name, or includes a "see also" link to the Melbourne suburb of that name. Hope this is useful to you! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive table of Melbourne suburbs added 

message: Hi, I was hoping someone in Melbourne could provide an image of the Capitol Theatre and/or Neuman College at the Uni of Melbourne for the Walter Burley Griffin article. The article is WikiProject Canberra's current featured article workup project. Thanks. --nixie 12:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Newman College? I can do that, Monday probably. pfctdayelise 04:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the place, thanks.--nixie 04:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image request

message: The Brighton Cemetery website  has a ton of historic information on it, including some well-researched articles on famous Melbourne crimes. It's worth a look, and could provide the ingredients for some good Melburne articles. Cnwb 11:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brighton Cemetery

message: Please come and help get our fine city's article reviewed and hopefully pushed towards FA status. Harro5 23:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Melbourne/archive1]] 

message: I'm planning to do some research on these topics over the next couple of weeks. Just thought I'd see if anyone else is interested in collaborating. Brunswick Lib has a big "local history" section, but you can't borrow anything. I might go in there with my digital camera one day and see if I can find anything interesting. (Rather sadly, neither of the two assistants I spoke to had even heard of Wikipedia. :o ) --pfctdayelise 12:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, who would've known that there were so many people into the history of Brunswick! I've been putting together some information (and images) at User:Cnwb/Brunswick, with the intent on creating an article on Brunswick history. And thanks for the tip off on the library pfctdayelise. Cnwb 23:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brunswick/Parkville history/buildings 

message: My apologies in advance if I'm doing this incorrectly.
I'd just like to correct an error in this article, which is the (repeated) referral to Melbournians as 'Melburnians'.
Could somebody who knows how to edit articles correcty (unlike myself!) please fix it?
:Erm, what error? Ambi 09:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's spelt that way. Odd I know, but it is.--cj | talk 09:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I was in Adelaide just before Christmas, and noticed that some call us "Mel-bore-ians". Cnwb 23:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor but irritating error throughout the article. 

message: :This may be a bit off-topic, but this is also the only place I could get all the Melburnians (I'm sure that it's the right spelling; I haven't seen any other) together.
:On the Australian wikipedians' noticeboard, it was announced today that some people were interested in starting a Wikimedia Australia. This would help with tax-deductible donations among other things, and making other Australians more aware of the Wikimedia projects wherever they are in Australia. Ther would also be promotion and recruitment. And social activities like meetups.
:Perhaps you could get your university, TAFE or school to help too.
:For more information, check this page:  or for more information about how a local chapter works: .
:We need your ideas, experience and expertise.
:Thank you, --EuropracBHIT 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Australia 

message: After some twelve months of anonymous contributions and edits to this project I recently came out of the closet and joined up. I have made numerous visits, over the year, to this page and I was beginning to think the project had become somewhat static. With that in mind I have made a couple of changes to the project page and have some suggestions:
* (1) I increased the size of font in main heading and reformatted table to bring "New Articles" higher up the page.
* (2) Moved the "Important Disclaimer" note from the top of the page to a new heading, down the page, of "In the beginning". The small font made it difficult to read and I was unclear as to what it was disclaiming. It seemed more to be a note about how the project got started.
* (3) Changed the "New Articles" format to provide a space for participants to post a link to their latest creation. This is similar to the Wikipedia:New articles (Australia) page. With over 80 people listed as participants I think it is important for them, and for visitors to the page to see that the project is dynamic and that articles are constantly being created.
* (4) In addition to the above may I suggest that “Current adoptions” be edited and updated. 
* (5) I tried to increase the height of the progress bars in the Geography, Government, etc. sections, which I think look a bit wimpy at 1 pixel, but only succeeded in screwing up the text in the table. Could someone with the technical skill have a look at this.
* (6) I am currently undertaking a survey of all articles on Melbourne Suburbs in order to update progress. My intention is to do this every second month. I will post the results on the Suburbs page in the next few days.
Congratulations to everyone who has helped with progress achieved so far and long may it continue into the future. Eric.
Cuddy Wifter 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front Page 

message: * created some template for a userbox accessible by   .Blnguyen 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: I have created a template for LGAs- Template:Local Government Areas ... in use at City of Casey and Shire of Cardinia. Feel free to help spread them. --Crazycrazyduck 11:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGAs 

message: Hello all Melburnian Wikipedians:
(or at least those reading this page).
Frankly, we need to take the initiative about suggesting these things.
AmishThrasher suggested we have one, but the suggestion went down like a flat balloon.
There are at least 80 of us on this project (and I know I'm slightly exaggerating matters here).
If Wikimedia Australia is going to be incorporated here (and this is a compelling reason, almost THE most compelling reason I know at the moment, apart from getting warm fuzzies) then we have to see each other face to face. Or we would want to. And then we could talk about project issues more intimately.
I've just come from the Wikimedia Australia meeting, do read the log, and the summary, so do please excuse my enthusiasm when I haven't actually been around this project as much as I ought.
You can all suggest a who, what, when, where, why and how; and we'll be prepared to listen and take all your suggestions into consideration.
Again, we just need a bit of initiative.
Please do make your mark on the Meetup/Melbourne page, or on my talk page. You know where to reach me.
Thank you,
--EuropracBHIT 05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we need a meetup 

message: The List of Melbourne suburbs and the suburbs infoboxes seem to cover a bunch of places which aren't in my judgement Melbourne suburbs.  They seem to have been derived by taking every suburb which lies within a local government area that has part of its boundary within greater Melbourne,  Shire of Yarra Ranges, for instance, contains a lot of rural areas which are well separated from the sprawl.  
Wouldn't the urban growth boundary as defined by Melbourne 2030 be a more appropriate boundary? --136.186.1.116 03:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on suburb talks about postcodes, any place delivered to from the Melbourne metropolitan delivery centres would be a suburb of Melbourne. The list is available here if anyone is inspired enough to sort through it. --bainer (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if, say, Yarra Glen gets delivered to from a Melbourne delivery centre, does it really count as a suburb? --Robert Merkel 12:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see Little River, Victoria blurring in the near future. Already it's tagged as a locality of Geelong, and a suburb of Melbourne. -- Longhair 12:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Melbourne suburb? 

message: Was wondering if there is something on Google Earth in the vein of the way cities such as New York are presented (ie, like street directories). Would be good to have a Melways on my computer. Rogerthat Talk 08:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can buy Melway on CD from their web site.  It won't let you overlay the streets on top of a satellite photo though.  Is that what you meant? --ozzmosis 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne on Google Earth

message: I've proposed , here, and I've been reminded you guys might like to know...  Alai 06:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - definitely! I didn't actually realise that there was not already a MelbRail stub. Also, if you'd like the new stub template to have the best looking icon around, feel free to chop up this:  (like , for example) ;) :). --Evan C (Talk) 06:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be game;  you'd have to upload and GFDL it, though; and if cropped in such a way as to look good at about 40px high, that'd be good...  Alai 07:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aiight - it's here:  --Evan C (Talk) 07:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, very nifty.  I'll be sure to drop back in if vote-stacking in favour of creation of the stub type is required. :)  Alai 16:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melbourne rail stub type, proposed 

message: Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] cooperation 

message: The above article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardware Lane, Melbourne -- Ian ≡ talk 13:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hardware Lane, Melbourne]]

message: I have undertaken a plan to replace all of Melbourne's 200 stations with new information tables. Currenty, the Puffing Billy Tourist Railway and around 10 Melbourne Stations have been completed. The length of this plan is unknown. Feel free to comment and make design changes here which can then be replicated around the network of station articles. Here is an example from Flinders Street Station:
313px
                   	
Station Information	Station Information
Code               	FSS
Line               	All lines terminate here
Number of Platforms	14
Number of Tracks   	13
Station Status     	Premium Station
</tr>
Station Facilities
Link
Connecting Transport and Timetables
Link
Melway map of station
Link
Zone Location</span>
1
HERE IS THE NEW UPDATED ROUTE NAVIGATION BOX, BASED ON THE CURRENT STYLE:
Station Navigation                                                                             	Station Navigation                                                                             	Station Navigation                                                                             	Station Navigation                                                                             	Station Navigation
"City Loop"                                                                                    	"City Loop"                                                                                    	"City Loop"                                                                                    	"City Loop"                                                                                    	"City Loop"
Clockwise                                                                                      	Southern Cross                                                                                 	|                                                                                              	Parliament                                                                                     	Anti - Clockwise
Alamein, Belgrave, Cranbourne, Frankston, Glen Waverley, Lilydale, Pakenham & Sandringham lines	Alamein, Belgrave, Cranbourne, Frankston, Glen Waverley, Lilydale, Pakenham & Sandringham lines	Alamein, Belgrave, Cranbourne, Frankston, Glen Waverley, Lilydale, Pakenham & Sandringham lines	Alamein, Belgrave, Cranbourne, Frankston, Glen Waverley, Lilydale, Pakenham & Sandringham lines	Alamein, Belgrave, Cranbourne, Frankston, Glen Waverley, Lilydale, Pakenham & Sandringham lines
Previous Station                                                                               	Refer to City Loop                                                                             	|                                                                                              	Richmond                                                                                       	Next Station
Epping & Hurstbridge lines                                                                     	Epping & Hurstbridge lines                                                                     	Epping & Hurstbridge lines                                                                     	Epping & Hurstbridge lines                                                                     	Epping & Hurstbridge lines
Previous Station                                                                               	Refer to City Loop                                                                             	|                                                                                              	Jolimont                                                                                       	Next Station
Entire network                                                                                 	Entire network                                                                                 	Entire network                                                                                 	Entire network                                                                                 	Entire network
I have also created a new article called Host Station. It lists information about them and the 31 host stations on the network.
===Comments===
:Gah, no! That is way too big. Infoboxes are supposed to discreetly summarise the key facts of the article, and I'm not sure there's a point having them at all for railway stations. This absolutely swamps the text of the article. Ambi 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is good, but it needs to be trimmed down a little.  I'd suggest that you narrow the table width, remove the images, and where possible, make entries for connecting transport double up if multiple routes serve the same destination.  Lokicarbis 05:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have removed the picture of the station and moved the Metlink Sign for the station to the place where the picture of the station was. I have also removed route information and have just left the route numbers with the links to the Metlink site for route information. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so if anyone knows how to align the route numbers to the centre of the infobox or change the font size to a smaller size that is still easy to read, feel free to change the code. Lakeyboy 06:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture isn't the problem, I don't think. It's way too wide and way too tall. The adjacent stations should be in the footer, as they are currently. The tram lines don't belong in the infobox - they cause the extreme length, and it's easy enough to just mention them in the article. And the station facilities section contains a bunch of things that no one really cares about - vending machines and toilet locations aren't exactly encyclopedic material. Really, a much trimmed down version of this, containing only the top section and a picture would be far more useful. Ambi 07:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is far too much information there. The busses, trams, toilets and parking spaces are extraneous - that's what the Metlink site's for. All that is really necessary is the top box. Add maybe a link to Metlink's pages for it (where all the other information can be derived from; the routes pages and the facilities pages are separate, IIRC). The bottom box is releavant, but is confusing and looks horrid. --Evan C (Talk) 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input guys. I have linked the Station Facilities and Connecting Transport and Timetables to the Metlink website. I have also simplified the route navagation as much as I can but for the inner city stations with branches shooting off everywhere, it has to look like that. Still if anything needs improving, just feel free to comment and I will work on it. I do have average knowledge of HTML coding which has enabled me to make clarification of some things. Lakeyboy 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for the route navigation to be in the infobox at all though - we already have workable footer templates for this, and they work quite well. If that was removed, it wouldn't be so bad - but it's still overly bright and a bit garish. Ambi 00:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have now enhanced the existing station navagation box which is located at the bottom of every station article. I now think it looks better because you don't have to pack so much information into such a small space as I have before. I will now use this format to update all stations I have already updated with the new tables. I have also neturalised the colours and added a link to a melway map of the station which takes you to the right place on the [www.street-directory.com.au] map database. I feel we are getting close to the final layout now. Thanks again for the comments. Keep them coming if you wish. You are all helping improve the station articles. Lakeyboy 06:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is much better, although I'm still not sure that we need the Metlink signs (what about the copyright on those, anyway?). The footer isn't bad, but really needs to lose the red, as it really does make it look garish. Ambi 07:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The only reason the "Entire Network" part of the table is red is because red is the colour Metlink uses for general information publications relating to the entire network. For example: The Fares and Travel Guide which you can pick up at stations and download from the Metlink site. I'm changing the colour from basic red to a darker red to match the colour off that same guide PDF file. And with the Metlink station signs at the top, I think it suits it because it is a lookalike to the station signs posted at every station in Melbourne and about the copyright, the metlink logo is, but not the actual sign so I have uploaded all of the signs as a logo for the licencing which is technically all that is copyrighted. I have also set the pixels so the station sign matches up to the pixels of the infobox. Lakeyboy 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd rather have the footer we had before than the one with the bright red. It may be the colour MetLink uses, but it is really, really ugly. Ambi 08:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now replaced that bright red with the metlink red which is darker. If you still don't think it suits, I will change it back to the light purple "efefef" colour. Lakeyboy 08:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The blue would be the correct colour to use in this case, as the link is to a list of Melbourne railway stations. If it were a link to all Melbourne transport lines and routes, black would be the correct colour (possible with tricolour squares/icons). Red is used occasionally, usually in "nitty gritty" information (eg; list of service alterations, the fares & ticketing manual), but isn't really the appropriate colour here. --Evan C (Talk) 08:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The entire network is now filled with the metlink blue with Evan C making a very good point that it refers to railway stations and not the whole public transport network. I think the final design is finished for now. Thanks for your help everyone. For a list of stations that have been fitted with new station info boxes, please look at my talk page: (Lakeyboy's Talk Page) Lakeyboy 09:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm signing off for the night. 5 stations have been totally upgraded. As said above, you can find the list on my talk page. Goodnight! Lakeyboy 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it.  Very cool :)  It doesn't quite line up with the rest of the infobox though, at least not in my browser (Firefox), but maybe that doesn't matter too much. --ozzmosis 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same in IE - just a CSS problem. It's a matter of not being able to centrallise the sign, have the text within right-aligned, and still have the sign sit in the correct place all at the same time! So the right-aligning of the sign was what had to be done (so to speak). --220.239.203.129 06:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, seeing as you like it, I've placed it at Template:MelbourneRailwayStation1, so that we can switch them over smoothly. I thought I'd come up with a way to do it with one in the existing template, but realised it won't really work. The process to change them is to simply add a "1" after "MelbourneRailwayStation" in the template inclusion, and then change "| LOGO=....." to "| NAME=.....". I've done Upper Ferntree Gully and General Motors to begin with, but I'll wait for a bit of a consensus before doing more. --Evan C (Talk) 06:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just switched over the Frankston article to the new infobox format and will do more soon.  Actually I just noticed something odd - if you right-click on the newly changed part, where the Metlink sign is, it shifts over from the right hand side of the infobox to the left hand side.  Very weird.  Maybe a bug in Firefox (1.5.0.2)?  Still, not a big deal though. --ozzmosis 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... Doesn't happen in IE6, IE7, or Opera, but I can confirm it happens in Firefox (same version as you). It seems the bug is in that FF shifts the image over in an attempt to accomodate the context menu. Something like that, anyway. Like you say, it's not a big deal. --Evan C (Talk) 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infobox now looks PERFECT. Everyone agree? (Don't reply here, reply below in next section) Lakeyboy 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See here for a good image of a sign: :Image:Minister fss signage.jpg. My version is closer (of course, by no means perfectly accurate), IMHO (and, also IMHO, looks better). Naturally, one template is a lot easier - and provides greater consistency (probably the more significant aspect). Ozzmosis? --Evan C (Talk) 09:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine!  I am happy.  Let's not get too picky. :-)  --ozzmosis 09:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've adjusted the font size and position very slightly - I think now it's very close to the "real thing". Bear in mind that the width is mainly to (roughly) match the width of the rest of the table. --Evan C (Talk) 09:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is now 2 MelbourneRailwayStation templates. Template:MelbourneRailwayStation1 for shorter station names and Template:MelbourneRailwayStation2 for longer station names. How about this? Lakeyboy 09:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Call me picky, but they look nothing like Metlink signs. The size is disproportionate (the width being variable, as seen at Parliament station), the white line is too thick.... gah! Sorry... --Evan C (Talk) 09:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, having two creates inconsistency. One of the great things about using templates is that everything is consistent. --Evan C (Talk) 09:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We only need one template for the station sign.  Remember that it should not detract from the article.  Making the font size of sign bigger than the header of the article is not a good idea. --ozzmosis 09:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, you're completely right. I don't want to get into a revert war here, though. --Evan C (Talk) 09:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither do I. The white line is now thinner and I don't see the fuss about having 2 when you can simply change the infobox template number from 1 to 2. And as I said on my page, the white line is now thinner. Looks better in my opinion. We really need a fourth opinion for these signs. Lakeyboy 09:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. Now I believe that the current one on Template:MelbourneRailwayStation1 is PERFECT. I don't know how it ended up looking like that but it is now the perfect picture. Everyone else agree? Lakeyboy 10:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version has not changed since I adjusted it. Lesson #1: LOOK before you revert! I've done this a few times, too. --Evan C (Talk) 10:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I guess I created alot of fuss over nothing. I guess I thought my input into this project was now being 'taken over'. But I have edited the template one more time and placed a new image with a width of 313px instead of 300px so it looks flush witht the sides of the infobox. The actual sign Has not changed. That is all. Lakeyboy 10:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded a fresh version at that width. Try to keep image names unambiguous. --Evan C (Talk) 10:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry about the file name (wasn't thinking straight) and thanks for converting it to a lossless GIF file. How about we work on converting the infoboxes now? Look at the list on my page for the stations that have the complete infoboxes and help me change them. If Ozzmosis is still on, would you be able to help? Lakeyboy 10:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan. I'll progressively list the unneeded sign images for deletion - gotta keep our Wikipedia nice 'n tidy, eh? --Evan C (Talk) 10:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Information Tables for Railway Stations

message: :Gah, no! That is way too big. Infoboxes are supposed to discreetly summarise the key facts of the article, and I'm not sure there's a point having them at all for railway stations. This absolutely swamps the text of the article. Ambi 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is good, but it needs to be trimmed down a little.  I'd suggest that you narrow the table width, remove the images, and where possible, make entries for connecting transport double up if multiple routes serve the same destination.  Lokicarbis 05:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have removed the picture of the station and moved the Metlink Sign for the station to the place where the picture of the station was. I have also removed route information and have just left the route numbers with the links to the Metlink site for route information. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so if anyone knows how to align the route numbers to the centre of the infobox or change the font size to a smaller size that is still easy to read, feel free to change the code. Lakeyboy 06:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture isn't the problem, I don't think. It's way too wide and way too tall. The adjacent stations should be in the footer, as they are currently. The tram lines don't belong in the infobox - they cause the extreme length, and it's easy enough to just mention them in the article. And the station facilities section contains a bunch of things that no one really cares about - vending machines and toilet locations aren't exactly encyclopedic material. Really, a much trimmed down version of this, containing only the top section and a picture would be far more useful. Ambi 07:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is far too much information there. The busses, trams, toilets and parking spaces are extraneous - that's what the Metlink site's for. All that is really necessary is the top box. Add maybe a link to Metlink's pages for it (where all the other information can be derived from; the routes pages and the facilities pages are separate, IIRC). The bottom box is releavant, but is confusing and looks horrid. --Evan C (Talk) 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input guys. I have linked the Station Facilities and Connecting Transport and Timetables to the Metlink website. I have also simplified the route navagation as much as I can but for the inner city stations with branches shooting off everywhere, it has to look like that. Still if anything needs improving, just feel free to comment and I will work on it. I do have average knowledge of HTML coding which has enabled me to make clarification of some things. Lakeyboy 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for the route navigation to be in the infobox at all though - we already have workable footer templates for this, and they work quite well. If that was removed, it wouldn't be so bad - but it's still overly bright and a bit garish. Ambi 00:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have now enhanced the existing station navagation box which is located at the bottom of every station article. I now think it looks better because you don't have to pack so much information into such a small space as I have before. I will now use this format to update all stations I have already updated with the new tables. I have also neturalised the colours and added a link to a melway map of the station which takes you to the right place on the [www.street-directory.com.au] map database. I feel we are getting close to the final layout now. Thanks again for the comments. Keep them coming if you wish. You are all helping improve the station articles. Lakeyboy 06:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is much better, although I'm still not sure that we need the Metlink signs (what about the copyright on those, anyway?). The footer isn't bad, but really needs to lose the red, as it really does make it look garish. Ambi 07:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The only reason the "Entire Network" part of the table is red is because red is the colour Metlink uses for general information publications relating to the entire network. For example: The Fares and Travel Guide which you can pick up at stations and download from the Metlink site. I'm changing the colour from basic red to a darker red to match the colour off that same guide PDF file. And with the Metlink station signs at the top, I think it suits it because it is a lookalike to the station signs posted at every station in Melbourne and about the copyright, the metlink logo is, but not the actual sign so I have uploaded all of the signs as a logo for the licencing which is technically all that is copyrighted. I have also set the pixels so the station sign matches up to the pixels of the infobox. Lakeyboy 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd rather have the footer we had before than the one with the bright red. It may be the colour MetLink uses, but it is really, really ugly. Ambi 08:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now replaced that bright red with the metlink red which is darker. If you still don't think it suits, I will change it back to the light purple "efefef" colour. Lakeyboy 08:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The blue would be the correct colour to use in this case, as the link is to a list of Melbourne railway stations. If it were a link to all Melbourne transport lines and routes, black would be the correct colour (possible with tricolour squares/icons). Red is used occasionally, usually in "nitty gritty" information (eg; list of service alterations, the fares & ticketing manual), but isn't really the appropriate colour here. --Evan C (Talk) 08:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The entire network is now filled with the metlink blue with Evan C making a very good point that it refers to railway stations and not the whole public transport network. I think the final design is finished for now. Thanks for your help everyone. For a list of stations that have been fitted with new station info boxes, please look at my talk page: (Lakeyboy's Talk Page) Lakeyboy 09:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm signing off for the night. 5 stations have been totally upgraded. As said above, you can find the list on my talk page. Goodnight! Lakeyboy 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 
As per User talk:Lakeyboy, I've produced an updated version of the infobox, the only difference being the dynamic sign. It's presently here (feel free to copy it in if it's acceptable): User:Evan_C/MelbourneRailwayStationT What'd y'all think?
:I like it.  Very cool :)  It doesn't quite line up with the rest of the infobox though, at least not in my browser (Firefox), but maybe that doesn't matter too much. --ozzmosis 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same in IE - just a CSS problem. It's a matter of not being able to centrallise the sign, have the text within right-aligned, and still have the sign sit in the correct place all at the same time! So the right-aligning of the sign was what had to be done (so to speak). --220.239.203.129 06:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, seeing as you like it, I've placed it at Template:MelbourneRailwayStation1, so that we can switch them over smoothly. I thought I'd come up with a way to do it with one in the existing template, but realised it won't really work. The process to change them is to simply add a "1" after "MelbourneRailwayStation" in the template inclusion, and then change "| LOGO=....." to "| NAME=.....". I've done Upper Ferntree Gully and General Motors to begin with, but I'll wait for a bit of a consensus before doing more. --Evan C (Talk) 06:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just switched over the Frankston article to the new infobox format and will do more soon.  Actually I just noticed something odd - if you right-click on the newly changed part, where the Metlink sign is, it shifts over from the right hand side of the infobox to the left hand side.  Very weird.  Maybe a bug in Firefox (1.5.0.2)?  Still, not a big deal though. --ozzmosis 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... Doesn't happen in IE6, IE7, or Opera, but I can confirm it happens in Firefox (same version as you). It seems the bug is in that FF shifts the image over in an attempt to accomodate the context menu. Something like that, anyway. Like you say, it's not a big deal. --Evan C (Talk) 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infobox now looks PERFECT. Everyone agree? (Don't reply here, reply below in next section) Lakeyboy 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated design, slightly

message: I have now updated the MelbourneRailwayStation1 template with a new template sign which I think looks much better than the one before and more realistic. I will most likely produce a second template (MelbourneRailwayStation2) for stations with longer names (eg: Upper Ferntree Gully.) I'll make it so it fits UFG with abit to spare (UFG having the longest station name on the network). What do you guys think about this improvement? Lakeyboy 09:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for a good image of a sign: :Image:Minister fss signage.jpg. My version is closer (of course, by no means perfectly accurate), IMHO (and, also IMHO, looks better). Naturally, one template is a lot easier - and provides greater consistency (probably the more significant aspect). Ozzmosis? --Evan C (Talk) 09:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine!  I am happy.  Let's not get too picky. :-)  --ozzmosis 09:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've adjusted the font size and position very slightly - I think now it's very close to the "real thing". Bear in mind that the width is mainly to (roughly) match the width of the rest of the table. --Evan C (Talk) 09:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is now 2 MelbourneRailwayStation templates. Template:MelbourneRailwayStation1 for shorter station names and Template:MelbourneRailwayStation2 for longer station names. How about this? Lakeyboy 09:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Call me picky, but they look nothing like Metlink signs. The size is disproportionate (the width being variable, as seen at Parliament station), the white line is too thick.... gah! Sorry... --Evan C (Talk) 09:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, having two creates inconsistency. One of the great things about using templates is that everything is consistent. --Evan C (Talk) 09:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We only need one template for the station sign.  Remember that it should not detract from the article.  Making the font size of sign bigger than the header of the article is not a good idea. --ozzmosis 09:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, you're completely right. I don't want to get into a revert war here, though. --Evan C (Talk) 09:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither do I. The white line is now thinner and I don't see the fuss about having 2 when you can simply change the infobox template number from 1 to 2. And as I said on my page, the white line is now thinner. Looks better in my opinion. We really need a fourth opinion for these signs. Lakeyboy 09:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. Now I believe that the current one on Template:MelbourneRailwayStation1 is PERFECT. I don't know how it ended up looking like that but it is now the perfect picture. Everyone else agree? Lakeyboy 10:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version has not changed since I adjusted it. Lesson #1: LOOK before you revert! I've done this a few times, too. --Evan C (Talk) 10:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I guess I created alot of fuss over nothing. I guess I thought my input into this project was now being 'taken over'. But I have edited the template one more time and placed a new image with a width of 313px instead of 300px so it looks flush witht the sides of the infobox. The actual sign Has not changed. That is all. Lakeyboy 10:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded a fresh version at that width. Try to keep image names unambiguous. --Evan C (Talk) 10:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry about the file name (wasn't thinking straight) and thanks for converting it to a lossless GIF file. How about we work on converting the infoboxes now? Look at the list on my page for the stations that have the complete infoboxes and help me change them. If Ozzmosis is still on, would you be able to help? Lakeyboy 10:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan. I'll progressively list the unneeded sign images for deletion - gotta keep our Wikipedia nice 'n tidy, eh? --Evan C (Talk) 10:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated once again, slightly