Talk:Sydney Trains T set

message: Shouldn't there be a common summary article about CityRail sets, and all existing pages named in a standard fashion e.g. by their letter codes or names e.g. V-Set (CityRail) (or DDIU (CityRail)), T-Set (CityRail) (or Tangara (CityRail), Endeavour (CityRail) etc? The current array is pretty messy and there is no table to link them all together as per the CityTrain, Connex Melbourne and other Australian systems. SM247 20:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge. Good idea. (JROBBO 10:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Common summary article: sure. But I don't believe there's need to merge them. Dysprosia 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Dysprosia, I actually agreed on a merge for some articles for some notable CityRail cars into one set... the text must have copied over to this article. I don't think a merge is a good idea for this article. (JROBBO 12:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of CityRail rollingstock articles 

message: May I suggest that we do not need a complete listing of operational T sets in this article, as it is very technical and only likely to be of relevance to hardcore gunzels who can find this information more accurately elsewhere? Jammo (SM247) 04:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car details 

message: why was the fact that the newer t-sets smell like shit and used condoms excluded from the article? this is a fact i, as a frequent train user, can attest to. i feel it needs to be included again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I love frenzal (talk • contribs) 11:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you need to provide a source for that "fact". See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Harryboyles 11:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  stupid no original research crap... go on... catch a t-set... then you'll know. they have inane graffiti as well. every single one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I love frenzal (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used shit and condoms 

message: I suggest changing the ampersand in the title to the word "and", following Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles.
Also, the article uses spaced hyphens for dashes - like this.  However, according to Wikipedia:MOS#Dashes, they should be em dashes—like this—or spaced en dashes – like this.  I'm a big fan of the em dash, but I don't want to pick a style that the people who've worked on the article might dislike.
No, I have no substantive criticisms.  :-) —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style 

message: I previously moved the mentioning of "2010" from the captions of the photos to the info box, but someone reverted it. The Info box should say “Refurbishment: 2010-” to avoid typing 2010 everytime a pre-refurbished tangara picture is posted up. If not 2010 should be "2010-" as NOT　all carraiges have been converted to the new seating yet. No, There are no sources on this because CityRail and its parent group RailCorp tend to not publish this information due to the complexity of their network and operations which may be subject to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loyalcityrailcustomer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refurbishment date 

message: After a quick look at wikipedia, apparently the Aboriginal Languages constitute around 27 families, and several hundred individual languages. It makes as much sense to write "an Aboriginal word meaning to go" as it does to write "a European word meaning to eat" for "mange".84.146.86.134 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aboriginal word" 

message: I actually mean it that on set T60, carriage N5225 has slightly louder chopper motors than all other carriages. It ain't that loud on any other carriages. Please include that info in the article. Thank you, Edgar Searle (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  N5225 has slightly louder choppers 

message: When reading this article it's quite difficult to differentiate between T set and G set information, it's all mixed into different sections apart from the conversion part. This is rather... disappointing? (Not sure what word to really use.) as the T sets and G sets are vastly different trains, in fact the ex. G sets aren't really T sets at all, they're classified as T1XX so they really should be called T1 sets.
For T121 and T14, they're special snowflakes. T100? I don't see much problem if there is a zeroth train in the fleet, if it exists it exists.
There could possibly be a second info box further down the page for the G sets, much like for the mark 1 and 2 X100 rail tractors. Just putting the idea out there, as I find it confusing that the G/T1 sets and the T sets are treated as one, yet the 4D gets to have it's own segment down the very bottom.
All the best, you can freely disregard my T1 set semi rant. Most people call them Ex. G sets anyways. GriffinRails (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible reformatting of this article? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved.   estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 October 2023 

message: Why no mention of the Waterfall rail accident in the Incidents section? Surely a fatal derailment warrants inclusion! 46.69.29.43 (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterfall Rail Accident