Template talk:Victorian rolling stock

message: Article for the M, L and F wagons and bogie variations. Needs links, pictures figures, stats, degunzelling.
Linky
Steamtostay (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  VR livestock article created. 

message: Should all the narrow gauge rollingstock be grouped together, or split among the given broad gauge articles?
Steamtostay (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There already seems to be stuff under the narrow gauge page, perhaps put it all together then put a mention on the type page. Wongm (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrow Gauge question 

message: Thinking about the types of wagons, particularly in terms of the new hoppers article I'm writing.
Should we really be sorting by type/shape, or should we be looking at traffic carried? i.e. a page for ballast (and sleeper) transport, another for grain transport and so on?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothersignalman (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wagon types 

message: The intention is that each of the traffic pages will either link directly to the only type of wagon qualified for that segment, i.e. the corpse, explosive and perishable pages (which I haven't linked properly, but I'm not sure how to code), while the rest will link to disambiguation-style pages with links to all the relevant classes (i.e. Gypsum would link to both the VOJF in open wagons, and VHJA wagons in the hopper page.
Anothersignalman (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganised; traffic section added 

message: I have fixed wikilinks to most of the railway companies, but note the use of the ampersand in the template - when the articles use 'and'. This makes me think the links to the various locomotive class articles might be wrong also.Garyvines (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railway company naming 

message: Where should I list the personal facebook accounts which are controlled by people who are experts in this field as established by previous published works etc? For example, Daryl Gregory, who (in conjunction with others) published the books used as definitive sources for most of these articles. I'd posit that posts made by his facebook account should qualify as expert sources, and therefore be permitted.
So for example, a list could be:
====Group A====
URL to Group A
*Person1 & URL to profile page
*Person2 & URL to profile page
====Group B====
URL to Group B
*Person3 & URL to profile page
*Person4 & URL to profile page
====Group C====
URL to Group C
*Person5 & URL to profile page
*Person6 & URL to profile page
The list needs to be dynamic, with some sort of name submission system if reliable people create their first accounts, or if a person becomes reliable after getting promoted and gaining access to information.
Anothersignalman (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Item 2

message: URL to Group C
*Person5 & URL to profile page
*Person6 & URL to profile page
The list needs to be dynamic, with some sort of name submission system if reliable people create their first accounts, or if a person becomes reliable after getting promoted and gaining access to information.
Anothersignalman (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Group C

message: I've made a significant reduction in the size of this template. As it stood it was bloated, full of hundreds of links of unclear connection pointing to only a few actual articles. Freight wagons in particular – there were over 150 individual links to only around 10 unique articles. This made the template effectively useless as a navigation tool. 
Per WP:NAV-WITHIN, we need to . I've stripped down the links so most articles are linked only once; some are repeated but only where they are in different top-level sections. 
Per WP:EXISTING I've also removed large amounts of unlinked and redlinked text; in some cases I've left the redlink as an encouragement for the article to be created at a later date per WP:REDLINK.
Collapsible groups have been added as well; when this template is transcluded in future please use the selected= paramter so the appropriate section is expanded.
The other significant change is I've made a move to a more descriptive but still short title; hopefully that will settle the name question. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I've spun off  to its own template; most of those articles didn't transclude this template as they ought per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and the connection to rollingstock articles is tenuous at best. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant changes 

message: The purpose of a navigation box is to provide a tool to navigate between similar articles. So unless an entry has an article to link to, then it is useless. The suggestion that most other Australian railway related navigational boxes contain redlinks is untrue, all of the other equivalent navboxes for Australia, NSW, Qld, SA and WA have none. Redlinks are fine if editors are actively in the process of creating the articles, but not as a list of articles they would like to see created, so if you want to add, write the article first and then there will be no reason to not include. Murina77 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant guideline is WP:EXISTING, also mentioned in the section just above this one. It discourages red links and also states . Favonian (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Favonian, guideline is crystal clear that unlinked articles do not belong. Murina77 (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the conflict perhaps be resolved by removing the redlinks here, and then creating a list article with the complete set of rolling stock? Felix QW (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The best solution is to right the articles, then there is no issue. Murina77 (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to create the missing 35 (minimum at last count needed to remove the red links) as extremely basic stub articles, but if they need to be made as full articles, I don't have the time or information needed to expand them into even useful stubs. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing dozens of stub articles just to circumvent a guideline is pointless. Would be better if editors took the time to understand why the guideline exists, rather than trying to find ways around it. Editors should focus their efforts on writing or improving articles where enough sources can be found to meet WP:GNG. Articles that don't meet GNG inevitably will be deleted, which in turn will be removed from the navigation box. There are already plenty of sub-standard articles in the category due to an editor filling many of theses with mostly solely with WP:SPS (discussed above under #Reliability of sources in rolling stock articles (social media etc)) that would be unlikely to survive an WP:AfD. Beachbo (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I should be able to fill most (if not all) the missing pages to at least the same amount on content as Victorian Railways H class (1877) & Victorian Railways G class (1877) if I can find enough time in the day (Those pages took around 1 day each trying to source the data, from sources I have easy access to). These pages are being produced as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Locomotives task force under the goals of WP:TRAINS. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2022 

message: -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version of template including redlinks and unlinked text 

message: Please see discussions about improving the other navboxes about rail vehicles for the Western Australian one (link), the NSW one (link), and the New Zealand one (link). I think that the Victorian style is one that the others could emulate. I haven't included QLD, TAS or SA as I think their navboxes are sufficiently small enough that they're fine to read. Fork99 (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions about improving similar navboxes elsewhere