Talk:Frankston line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early text[edit]

I added the infrastructure section, but I am not familiar with the infrastructure after Cheltenham station. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 22:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frankston railway line. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note for page update[edit]

As this is one of the few services in Melbourne that runs the full lenght of the line (excluding an extension as the Stony Point service), there will need to be a few extra section added compared to the other Metro Trains Melbourne services.

  • Both rail service and rail line infoboxes - service will cover important info regarding the current server while line will cover the physical line info not covered in the service one (eg former connection, line electrification dates, etc).
  • Former stations - For stations where they aren't notable enough for their own page, they at supposed to be included on the rail line page. For other Melbourne services, this can be moved to the closed extended sections page (where the extended section is itself notable enough to have a separate page).

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason for this is that this page needs to be treated as a merged Frankston Metro Service page and a Frankston Railway Line page. Unlike some of the other Melbourne ones (eg Cranbourne Metro Service with the separate South Gippsland railway line). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Service infobox:
  1. Name: Frankston Service - to distinguish it from the Frankston (Physical Track)
  2. First service: 1 August 1882 - useful information
  3. Length: the correct length according to Metro Trains Melbourne documentation of the electrified Frankston line is 43.230km
  4. Average journey time: 1 hour 7 minutes (does not need "~" as it is already described as an average time)
  5. Frequency: still need checking, I just copied previous info (I will check it with the official timetable when I get time later this week)
  6. Former operator: Victorian Railways (VR) (1882–1974) - was only to Mordialloc in 1881 so not a Frankston service
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok good idea. Make sure to also add the closed stations into the track map (different to the metro train service map) when you have some time. I'll then nominate it for GA status once this has been completed. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The route map is waiting on Template talk:Rail-interchange#Template-protected edit request on 7 February 2023, apparently Stony Point didn't exist in the rail-interchange template. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting... hopefully they approve the edit soon. In the mean time, that's the map for the metro service- what about one for the rail line (example: Cranbourne Line)? HoHo3143 (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both are now done
--ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no mention of the line being connected to the craigieburn line[edit]

as this is in important part of the line's future I don't see why it has basically 0 mention in the article. Although it isn't comfirmed yet it should have some mentioning in the article probably like a sentence or two NotOrrio (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the PTV 2025 map that won't be the case. You also just wrote "although it may not be confirmed"?! HoHo3143 (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NotOrrio I've just done a quick google search and nothing has come up- where have you heard this? HoHo3143 (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it won't be present in 2025 as the two lines being connected will happen in stage four of the Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail. To clarify I saw this in the following pdf [1] uploaded to PTV NotOrrio (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone ahead and made a one sentence mention. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
corrected it to although it isn't comfirmed yet as that was what i was trying to originally say NotOrrio (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Route maps have an error[edit]

Waiting on Template talk:Rail-interchange#Template-protected edit request on 7 February 2023. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has now been fixed. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frankston railway line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ZKang123 thank you for beginning to review the article! I am available to complete this during the week so I'm ready for the feedback. If I get a bit busy (with school or something else) I'll let you know. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ZKang123 also just to give you the heads up, I've added checkY and exclamation mark  symbols for the subheadings for the ones I have/haven't completed. If you go and add more feedback/ a comment that needs changing, switch the symbols so I know (the review is a bit long so I don't want to miss anything). HoHo3143 (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ZKang123 ok so I've finished everything except for adding some additional images and reviewing the sources (the last dot point at the very bottom). I'll make sure to do this tomorrow. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):


· · ·

Beginning review checkY[edit]

  • Earwig's Tool show some lifting of similar phrases, e.g. "in line with modern rail systems overseas", "New interior designs including tip-up seating" etc from FN60.
    • checkY removed/changed. hoepfully this is better now
  • Images all licensed. Though I would like to ask, why is the infobox image of Bonbeach station also repeated in the body?
    • checkY both the photos are high quality and its a different angle anyway. Whilst there are a number of photos on wikimedia commons, its hard as plenty of photos are from the early 2010s (meaning low quality and out of date)
      • Oh I see the difference now. Ha. I admit adding some historical photos would enhance the history section. But if there are no such photos, it doesn't matter.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • checkY I'll try and find some and add them in
          • checkY done
  • Is the Melbourne Railway icon under free use?
    • checkY yes i think so. Its been reviewed by others numerous times before
      • May I have a direct link to the file so I can double check? Thanks.
        • checkYFile:Melbourne train logo.svg

More to come. --ZKang123 (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History checkY[edit]

  • The 19th century section is a little brief. Is there more information on why the line is built, or part of what project? Who operated the line in its early days?
    • exclamation mark  I've beefed it up a bit- do you think its better now?
    checkY all good! I'll implement your other suggestions later this afternoon. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FN8 is repeated for the first two consecutive sentences. Also suggest using title case for source titles instead of all caps.
    • checkY fixed and added an aditional reference used on the mordialloc article
  • I'm assuming "quadruple" means three additional tracks being built alongside the one track on the line.
    • checkY yes going up to 4
  • "The introduction of power signalling on the line begun in 1933" - please move this paragraph to the preceding paragraph or other.
    • exclamation mark  why? its in order now (unless im missing something)
      • Well, as per GA criteria I wish to avoid short paragraphs with one or two sentences.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    checkY ok good point. done HoHo3143 (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "these plans did not eventuate." - "Eventuate" sounds a little weird and unconventional. Suggest "these plans failed to materialize." or something similar.
    • checkY done
  • "The current bridge over the Patterson River" - please move this sentence to the preceding paragraph or other.
    • checkY done
  • "at a cost of $10 million." Would clarify firsthand that it's Australian dollars (i.e. A$10 million)
    • checkY fixed
  • "This brought the cost of train fares down, improving system accessibility to the public. All stations between Patterson and Frankston were rezoned to Zone 2." - This sentence is uncited. Either delete or cite accordingly.
    checkY it should be there HoHo3143 (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 2021, the metropolitan timetable underwent a major rewrite" - please further elaborate. FN24 is dead and doesn't explain on how services changed.
    • checkY whilst the citation is dead, its been archived so you can still access it. PTV for some reason likes to delete pages and makes finding older information harder. I've added 2 extra sentences to further explain.

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21st century and future checkY[edit]

  • The main article tag is unnecessary given the subsequent section.
    • checkY
  • The last sentence of the 20th century section is repeated in the 21st century section. Please remove that sentence.
    • checkY
  • "no longer operated" -> "no longer operate"
    • checkY
  • For "Level Crossing Removals" subsection I might add a photo of an existing level crossing on the line.
    • checkY added
  • I might further elaborate that the extension to Baxter would interchange with an existing line over there, because the accompanying photo at first glance told me the station is built, but isn't for the line. The caption could be improved saying "Baxter station of the Stony Point line".
    • checkY
  • Also, for image captions, fragments should not have full stops at the end. (e.g. just "The present day Baxter station")
    • checkY
  • FN6 needs website name.
    • checkY

Network and operations checkY[edit]

  • The "operators" subsection could be in the history section instead of here. Just mention the present operator under the "services" subsection.
    • checkY as you can probably tell, these articles are heavily inspired by what you've done for the Singapore mrt articles. I felt that the operators section best fit into the network and operations due to how the history is layed out, that being the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. I think it still makes sense for it to be kept in the network and operations area
      • Yeah but I felt it could be integrated into the history section, since the line being under various operators is pretty significant up there than here. I def see the inspiration; my main reference points actually have been 1 Line (Sound Transit) and MAX Red Line.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @HoHo3143 there's still this ZKang123 (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @ZKang123 I still think it's best left as it is. It would stuff up the order of the 19, 20, 21 business. In addition, all of the other 13+ articles I've done so have this same layout so for continuity I think its best kept the way it is. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Alright if you insist. But truthfully find it odd and unconventional. ZKang123 (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I do get where you're coming from but its worked well and not been mentioned by other reviewers HoHo3143 (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suggest that the station wikitable could be merged with the Frankston services table, much like 7 (New York City Subway service). If possible, like Victoria line, add images of each station in the wikitable.
    • checkY for continuity reasons, I think its best kept how it is. All of the other 13+ articles I've rebuild have been done this way with numerous being approved for GA status without this change. Whilst it is a good idea, maybe it should be left for when/if the article gets nominated for featured article status. One user started doing this for the Pakenham line article but it was then promptly abandoned and hasn't been finished.
      • Alright. This wouldn't be a major hindrance against me granting a pass if that's a convention for rail lines in Australia, but I do suggest considering reorganizing the table if it comes to FA. You can also use the visual editor to easily edit tables instead of using source editor.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • checkY yeah don't worry I always use visual editor... think this is best left for FA due to the inconsistent quality of photos

Further comments checkY:

  • "These operators, Victorian Railways, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Public Transport Corporation, and Bayside Trains have a combined operational length of 118 years." - missing citation.
    • checkY added. also a bit of addition from the table
  • Stations subsection: "across 42.7 kilometres (26.5 mi) of track" is unnecessary given alr previous section alr stated the length.
    • checkY fixed
  • For former stations you can consult how London Underground lines also mention about former stations on the line. Frankly don't find a table necessary.
    • checkY I'd prefer to leave this as we have it on all other articles about the lines. this is especially important for the more complex articles with a more confusing history. also this is something that ThylacineHunter thinks works well (and I agree)

Infrastructure checkY[edit]

  • On the passage on engineering trains, are there other sources? Again, FN64 needs website name. (Please check other sources)
    • checkY unfortunately not. Some information is available from fan blogs (mentioned in signalling) but not much elsewhere. not credible / allowed to be used by the Wikipedia community
  • "Planned rolling stock" has plenty of lifting directly from the source. Suggest rewording those points and rewrite into a succient paragraph instead of a list.
    • checkY done
  • "there are some stations that haven't been upgraded to meet these guidelines" -> "Some stations have not been upgraded."
    • checkY done
  • Also avoid contractions. Recheck the article for such contractions.
    • checkY I did a search by ' and fixed those. If you notice anymore fix them or let me know
  • Signalling section is very brief. No other information?
    • checkY not a lot unfortunately! There is some information from blogs like vicsig but it never passes GA reviews so I didn't bother including it as a source
      • Oh alright. Personally find it strange. Maybe you can check where the blogs got their technical information from. Otherwise, if there's no official documentation you can leave as is. But this will be a significant issue brought up in a potential FA.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source formatting checkY[edit]

As per this revision

  • FN13 is missing title
    • checkY fixed
  • As per previous comments, please add website name. E.g. FN6: Transport for Victoria. Similar for FN45, 73
    • checkY fixed
  • FN49, 52 please use Template:Cite news
    • checkY fixed
      • Ref 49 isn't yet.
  • FN61: Title should be "Commuters get to try new look Connex trains", website/work name as "Herald Sun". URL should be under "archive-url" parameter with the archive date, with the original URL in the "URL" parameter. Also mark "url-status" as dead.
    • checkY fixed
  • FN30: "Melbourne's Public Transport Gallery" should be under website name.
    • checkY fixed
  • The source formatting do really need work. Please bear in mind:
    • Book references need the author, publishing date and page number. (GA criteria)
    • Book references preferably should include the publisher, city of publication and ISBN.
    • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. (GA criteria)

Addendum: checkY

  • FN 70, 71: Remove name parameter.
    • checkY fixed

The article looks to be in good shape. I'm putting the article on hold while the above issues are addressed.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ZKang123 everything should be finished now, including adding the additional images. Let me know if there is any final critiques you have before its approved. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Glen Waverley railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]