Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Melbourne/Railway stations

message: There is a technical term for the travel direction in relation to Melbourne. Trains heading towards Melbourne are Up trains, and trains heading away from Melbourne are Down trains. We should include this in our direction labelling. We can arrange it so that towards Melbourne is always on top (up), and away from Melbourne is always on the bottom (Down). This will also help with station adjacency. At present, station adjacency has left and right used for the previous and next stations, but the proposed station diagram would employ up and down instead. If we always use up for "towards Melbourne" and down for "away from Melbourne", not only would our proposed station diagrams be consistent with the adjacency diagrams, but the orientation of the diagrams would match the actual directions used for these directions in the technical terminology (up and down). -- <SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#006666; background-color:#ffff99; border-color:#ff0000; border-width:1px; border-style:solid; "> B.d.mills </SPAN> (Talk) 12:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here - this would seem to make a lot of sense. Ambi 13:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Up and Down

message: I think having both of these templates tends to make each page look quite cluttered. How feasable  is it to combine these two templates into a single template? Does anyone else agree?
Two stripe 10:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it looks cluttered, although it isn't as bad on larger articles. However, I'd rather kill the quick facts box altogether, as it doesn't serve much purpose. Ambi 13:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks like one has been deleted. Josh Parris # 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No such luck. Ambi 00:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|MelbourneStations}} and {{tl|MelbStation}}

message: I have checked all articles in the List of Melbourne railway stations and made an estimate of percentage complete for each one.  I have rated each article between 0.20 for a basic stub to 1.00 for a virtually complete article. Examples of complete articles would include Flinders Street, Richmond, Windsor, Essendon, Blackburn, Alamein, Rushall and Keon Park.
The calculated overall progress for Melbourne railway stations, as at Feb 3, 2006, is 35%. 
Here is a list of ratings and number of articles:
Rating     	No. of articles
0.00       	0
0.20 (stub)	119
0.25 - 0.40	67
0.45 - 0.65	17
0.70 - 0.95	12
1.00       	18
Total      	233
Based on the above numbers a table of stations based on Railway Lines looks like this:
Position	Railway Line                    	No. of stations	%Complete
1       	 City Loop                 	5              	1.00
2       	 Alamein line              	6              	1.00
3       	 Lilydale line             	22             	0.48
4       	 Sandringham line          	11             	0.45
5       	 Upfield line              	14             	0.41
6       	 Frankston line            	26             	0.37
7       	 Broadmeadows line         	12             	0.37
8       	 Flemington Racecourse line	2              	0.33
9       	 Craigieburn line          	1              	0.30
10      	 Epping line               	20             	0.29
11      	 Sydenham line             	9              	0.29
12      	 Williamstown line         	3              	0.28
13      	 Glen Waverley line        	12             	0.28
14      	 Hurstbridge line          	17             	0.26
15      	 Belgrave line             	8              	0.26
16      	 Pakenham line             	18             	0.26
17      	 Sunbury line              	2              	0.25
18      	 Tourist railways          	17             	0.25
19      	 Werribee line             	13             	0.23
20      	 Stony Point line          	9              	0.22
21      	 Cranbourne line           	2              	0.20
22      	 Melton line               	4              	0.20
Eric. Cuddy Wifter 02:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress update Feb 3, 2006 

message: In the list of things to include, it mentions signage status. 
I maintain a map of the signage status, which might be useful for this. It's available here: http://www.evancottle.net/metlinks.gif, and is based on reports from: http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t15033-0-asc-s0.htm
Hope that helps :) --Evan C 11:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metlink Signage Status 

message: The progess update for Railway Stations shows that of 233 articles, 18 are complete, 41 are over 50% complete, 89 have up to 40% content and 85 are stubs. Percentage complete is 39% (= to 92 articles).  - Cuddy Wifter 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress update April 22, 2006

message: The context of this page is quite outdated and old. I have already fixed the infobox and station navigation tables to the current standard but I think we need to decide on a layout of the page and the basic guidelines of what to include in an article. There is some items in the criteria which mention things to include which I have seen people say "That's not something that is meant to be in an encyclopedia" so I think it needs some changes. Lakeyboy 12:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating of criteria needed

message: I think we need to decide what should happen with these aspects of railway stations. I reckon the 'Metlinked' status has a chance and with Evan C making a map which shows the metlinking status of the stations around Melbourne. But I'm not sure about the car park spaces and bicycle lockers and etc. I am not for and I'm not against it. I'll leave that decision up to others. Lakeyboy 09:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Metlinking status might've been approprate a few months ago. Now, the vast majority of stations are complete. As for the other details, if there's something that makes that detail special (eg; "This station received a carpark extension in 2003"), it could be included as text in the body of the article. Otherwise those kinds of details probably aren't needed, when the station info's linked to anyway. --Evan C (Talk) 09:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Metlinked' status and little things such as car park spaces, bicycle lockers etc

message: I notice the fair use nazis have been at work and deleted your infobox with the Metlink logo. I think the old box looks better - can you put back the header but without the copyrighted logo on it? (JROBBO 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of infobox 

message: The progess update for Melbourne Railway Stations shows that of 233 articles, 18 are complete, 68 are over 50% complete, and 147 have 30 to 40% content. The percentage complete is estimated at 48%. - Cuddy Wifter 00:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress update August 28, 2006

message: I presume this is meant to be Host / Premium / Unstaffed.  There's a category, :Category:Host Melbourne railway stations that, like :Category:Premium Melbourne railway stations holds Premium stations, was meant to hold the host stations.  Is anyone interested in populating this category, perhaps with a small modification to the template? Josh Parris#: 05:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station Status 

message: I've done an article on Albury railway station, New South Wales akin to the Victorian format, since I haven't got around to making a NSW country station infobox yet (but since it's served by more Victorian trains than NSW, maybe it should stay that way.)
I had some suggestions: you have the Overland runnning through the Melbourne suburban network, but past that there's no listing of the stations where it stops (like Ararat, Dimboola, etc.) Can articles be made for the stops on the Overland? JROBBO 07:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albury railway station and suggestions for more stations 

message: The progess update for Melbourne Railway Stations articles is estimated at 59% complete. Of 233 articles, 20 are complete, 102 are over 60% complete, 97 are 50% complete and 14 are about 30% complete. - Cuddy Wifter 07:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress update April 15, 2007

message: The Seaholme railway station, Melbourne article has just been nominated for deletion. Klausness (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Seaholme railway station AfD