Talk:Sunbury line

Request move

Sydenham railway line → Sunbury railway line – Sydenham railway line has been superseded by the Sunbury project, which is now live as of 18 Nov 2012dazzafar (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It appears on Metro website as Sunbury line. BlackCab (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This change went into effect at first trains today 18 November 2012 and must be changed ASAP.reinthal (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Done. As a speedy move; not quite sure how to remove this discussion, though. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Crusoe. Is the track length in the infobox up to date or yet to be changed? BlackCab (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please remove this article from the community portal.

This article can no longer have pictures added unless somebody adds more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechinesekid (talk • contribs) 10:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 06:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet I've finished my exams now so I'll be able to start working on the GA fixes. And also @ThylacineHunter once I've finished this, I'll go back and work on the Warrnambool service. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This is great to see, as a Melbourne local and frequent public transit user. I see you're endeavouring to bring all the metropolitan lines to GA -- working on a WP:GT? While I'm writing from the perspective of a regular user who's familiar with PT advocacy and issues, I'm not writing from the perspective of a railfan familiar with all the technical details of what makes up a station, so technical details you assume familiarity with may be pressed on.

I've skimmed through the article in anticipation of a full review and see nothing quickfail-tier. However, the following points stood out immediately:

• Use of lists as a replacement for prose is fairly extensive, in contexts where it's not necessarily justified. Look over your lists and consider where they might be seeing use as shortcuts to avoid expanding on an issue, rather than the best way to present information. In particular, the line extensions are presented as lists in ways that focuses on the technical details and not so much the human interest. The Sunbury extension was controversial and unusual solutions had to be presented to get it done; this is barely touched on at present.
• The Sunbury Line Upgrade logo makes no case for its presence, especially if it's presented as fair use (which it clearly doesn't fit requirements for). It might actually be PD in the US -- it certainly looks like it falls below the US TOO (though not the Australian one, so couldn't be transferred to Commons) -- but even if it checks out perfectly license-wise, it serve mostly as a questionably useful block of text in the middle of the article.
• Check your prose quality a little -- there are sections with e.g. contractions, which are suboptimal.

That's just a fairly quick read-through, as a prelude to a full review. Tell me how you go with them and we'll get deeper in. Vaticidalprophet 06:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet thanks for having a look at the article- I have a tone that need reviewing! I am currently in my school exam period so I have limited time to edit wikipedia. You can go ahead and write up everything that needs fixing and I'll be able to get to it later this week. One thing for the first point you made- the Sydenham extension section has very very limited information so it was hard to write much up. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Time limitations are fine; I don't work super fast at GAN and don't pressure others to either. I'm still taking a look through, and the thing about GANs is that some issues tend to become much clearer when others around them are fixed, so I can't confidently lay everything out at once; nonetheless, I can make a stab at it.

I don't mind the info on Sydenham/Watergardens being sparse. I do think there's more to say about the Sunbury extension, because Sunbury did and still somewhat does have a separate identity to metro Melbourne, and taking it off the country track to the metro track was a Big Deal. I see you've cited Daniel Bowen elsewhere in the article (I'm fine with this, he's clearly a subject-matter expert from an SPS perspective), and he's certainly both written about it and cited other sources on it. If you've got newspapers.com through TWL, that's definitely worth taking a look through as well (and if you don't, get it -- it's fantastic).

I want to reiterate the removal of the Sunbury Line Upgrade image, which is a negative to the article (the minimalist logo is at best decorative and only serves to draw the eye from useful information). I also want to call to the prose, as mentioned. The lists-as-prose-substitute are suboptimal, but more worrying there are areas of actively poor prose:

• With new substations, upgraded stations, other projects also being completed during the August/ September 2022 (#Sunbury Line Upgrade)
• The route is 40.3 kilometres (25.0 mi) long and is fully doubled tracked from Flinders Street to its termnius (#Route)
• Well over half of the stations on the corridor are fully accessible, however, there are some stations that haven't been upgraded to meet these guidelines (#Accessibility)

There are more that are at least a little wonky, but this stood out to me. Take a fairly strong look for spelling/grammar. I'll be able to go through line-by-line to read all the prose once there are some expansions in the spots I'm concerned about.

Scope-wise, I want to pick on the "Network and operations" section, because it's by far the most-read part of any PT-related article. Something to keep in mind when writing these articles is that the biggest use case for them (that is, the thing the reader is generally looking for) is planning travel, especially given the PTV site is frankly terrible. Through that lens, there are some issues with that section; many of them are common to Melbourne's PT articles, but that just means all the articles are less usable. I'm particularly concerned by the decontextualized way stop info is presented in the stopping patterns table; there's no prose that describes when these different stopping patterns run, or what trips go or don't go through the City Loop (speaking personally, I've never been on a Sunbury line train that didn't, so I wonder if that's still accurate ignoring future Metro Tunnel changes). This should be sourcable? From a less practical/more technical perspective, I'm also concerned about sourcing; Watergardens is listed as opening in 1859, which is patently untrue. Vaticidalprophet 17:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Vaticidalprophet, I'm responsible for updating infoboxes, route diagrams, stopping patterns tables and station histories tables on both Victorian service and line articles. Your comments will also be true for all the other Metro services in Melbourne.

I see what you mean about needing an explanation when these different stopping patterns run (this could be added to the "Services" section above the table). This should be easily sourceable for the timetable ref link in the table header (this ref link is hard to see on the drak blue line group).

As for Watergardens opening, it opened on 1 March 1859 as Keilor Road (later Sydenham) according to Anderson, Rick (2010). Stopping All Stations. Clunes, Victoria: Full Parallel Productions. ISBN 978-0646543635. OCLC 671303814. Sydenham was relocated 600 m as part of its rebuild as a terminus of the electrification project in 2002 (to allow room for stabling sidings). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Our article for Watergardens railway station presents it as opening in 2002 and describes Sydenham as a closed historical station; this is also closer to what I've seen elsewhere. I note Vicsig does lean towards the continuity-of-identity understanding. It's probably worth having all our articles say the same thing, but it's not 100% clear what they should say. Vaticidalprophet 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The history section on the Watergardens page does cover the Sydenham station (this section could be improved).

If counting them as seperate stations, this will get very messy as it would mean, for a start, there are 3 Epping stations and 3 Middle Footscray station as they both reopened on different sites 2 times, also a seperate "Albion and Darlington station" (closed for 30 years before reopening as Albion site 1 then moved to Albion site 2). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet I've done some things and am I bit confused about others. I beefed up the Sunbury extension a bit to include more of what you are talking about, beefed up the lead, and removed the upgrade logo (that makes sense). I am confused about:

• What's wrong with lists to list the components of each project?
• What needs fixing with:? "I also want to call to the prose, as mentioned. The lists-as-prose-substitute are suboptimal, but more worrying there are areas of actively poor prose:
  • With new substations, upgraded stations, other projects also being completed during the August/ September 2022 (#Sunbury Line Upgrade)
  • The route is 40.3 kilometres (25.0 mi) long and is fully doubled tracked from Flinders Street to its termnius (#Route)
  • Well over half of the stations on the corridor are fully accessible, however, there are some stations that haven't been upgraded to meet these guidelines (#Accessibility)"

Also so the information of what to fix is communicated more clearly, I recommend using a table format like this HoHo3143 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, HoHo3143 -- I was writing up a response to this that's still in the drafts, but my life took a very unexpected turn recently. I've lost my house (I'm okay now!), and while I'm returning to other GANs/FACs, I don't think I'll be able to continue this one -- it's the same railway line as the place where I was living, and it feels too sensitive to go back to. I'm sorry I couldn't respond to this. Would you prefer I put the review on 2O or that I end it and you renominate? Both would probably take a similar length of time right now, honestly. Vaticidalprophet 09:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, @Vaticidalprophet. I'm sorry to hear what has happened recently and I hope that you will be ok in the future. Question though: what is "2O"? Also, as there still is a large backlog of my articles that need reviewing, do you know of somebody that can pick up this review? If so that would be highly appreciated. Thanks HoHo3143 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)