Talk:Adelaide railway station

message: Should the name of the article be simply Adelaide station?Endrū Hejs (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Endrū Hejs, the answer is no as per the following link from the state government agency responsible for public transport in Adelaide - Adelaide Railway Station Near: 125 North Tce, Adelaide Stop Code: 16490.  Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Adelaide railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413132821/https://dtei.clients.squiz.net/RCDR/rail_car_depot_relocation to https://dtei.clients.squiz.net/RCDR/rail_car_depot_relocation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To User: Train Controller Brian Lee (aka User: Typhoon Destroyer): Hello – and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As discussed in the reversion summary, I have indicated that a discussion of recent editing be directed here. While I appreciate your efforts in endeavouring to edit (preserve?) the page, the primary reason for reverting your edit is the unsubstantiated justification given for effectively reverting the past 28 edits to this page (edits that cover the last 5+weeks of the article’s history). A quick glance with your previous edit of 9 August and comparison with that of 14 October, will reveal  no (i.e. zero) effective changes whatsoever – basically a complete reversion to the latest edit made by yourself.
The reason cited for this action was “Unapproved edition。。 please specific all the changes with reference”. Well, besides being unclear what exactly you mean by “unapproved”, I would argue that it is quite clear that Wikipedia article development proceeds by consensus, and there is clearly no “approved edition” of any article on Wikipedia at any time - Wikipedia simply does not work that way. And if it does, then could you please explain to me who it was who approved it, on what basis and criteria, alongside the location/forum where that discussion and approval is recorded?
As for the justification “please specific all the changes with reference“ I would argue that this is clearly not grounds for a blanket reversion of 28 intermediate revisions by 2 users over a period of 5+weeks – particularly when most changes were simply copy (rather than content) edits – edits aimed at improving existing content. Similarly, rejecting edits such as the renaming of a heading, or the moving of an image or sentence simply because there was no “specific all the changes with reference” is clearly a misunderstanding of how citations work. I also note that you yourself have made 41 edits to this article since 2 July, however none of these included references. Further exploration of the article's edit history shows a similar warning that was added by yourself on 6 July (one that was quickly deleted by another user), namely  “*IMPORTANT* ALL INFORMATION WITH NO EVIDENCE WILL BE EDITED OR DELETED”, which to me begins to raise warning bells (despite Wikipedia:Assume good faith) regarding possible perceptions of Wikipedia:Ownership of content.
Further, I note that you have been on and off Wikipedia for about 6 months. I recall, when I was at a similar period (about 8 years ago), I often boldly edited too, always in good faith, but often without a complete knowledge of the required or acceptable procedures and protocols. To that end, I would strongly argue that the onus is on yourself as the reverter to be specific and clearly explain, based on Wikipedia's protocols, why any individual edit is determined to be detrimental to the article, rather than a blanket rejecting of all edits. As facilitation, I would invite perusal of articles such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.  Please note that I am more than happy to discuss in detail each of the 28 individual edits that have been reverted, and look forward to hearing your specific input to this discussion. Thank you.  JabberJawJAPAN talk 14:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent unsubstantiated blanket reversion 

message: Hi all,
I've noticed the platform count on this page has been edited recently. Anyone who uses the station would know that there are 9 platforms. Station signage and announcements attest to this. I've gone ahead and changed it back to "9 (4 island, 1 side)". If you look at the Wikipedia page for Perth Railway Station, it currently reads, in regard to platforms: "9 (1 island underground, 2 island above ground & 3 side above ground)". So, it seems that railway stations are now being described in this way, ie a total platform count listed, followed by the number of island and side platforms in brackets. The number added up in brackets does not equal the total number listed before the brackets, because each island platform is only considered 1 single platform in the bracketed section.
I don't edit on Wikipedia often, so would like to hear everyone's thoughts. Whatever the consensus, I think we should still list 9 platforms as the total in this article, due to the station signage and announcements reflecting this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.186.49 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform count