Jump to content

Talk:Cranbourne line

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ThylacineHunter (talk | contribs) at 05:23, 27 December 2022 (→Final Clean up: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cranbourne 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cranbourne 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking this article

The article is lacking in crucial information about the line and since the Pakenham line is currently getting a good article nomination i figured it would be best to start reworking on it NotOrrio (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NotOrrio, I'll work on updating the infoboxs & route maps (metro service & actual line), stopping patterns, and station histories (similar to what I have started doing with the Williamstown line). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with how the stations table is shown... Southern Cross (although soon to be removed from this line, it will still be on others) spans 25 rows due to the Train Connections column. This is not easily readable on a pc screen, and totally impossible on a mobile. Changes I'd propose:
  • Both train and other connections will also be shown on both the service and line route maps (still under construction)
  • Accessibility and terrain, although important, are probably better suited to remaining on individual station pages
  • Services and stopping patterns can be moved to a seperate table to better show Local, Ltd Express or Express services
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing this out one solution for this could possible using a table similar to the one seen on the article for the Glen Waverley railway line i have removed the accessiblity and terrain for now, the table was mostly a remodified version of the one seen at Pakenham_railway_line#Stations and I didn't plan on it for being the permanant version. NotOrrio (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some line don't have anything (eg Craigieburn railway line), others have just services (eg Belgrave railway line). My proposal would be use both (as I have started for User:ThylacineHunter/Lines/Metro#Williamstown). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ive made a couple of changes to the stations table
  1. I had split of the stopping patterns on to a seperate table
  2. I re did the connections section to be more compact and user friendly
NotOrrio (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NotOrrio, As I have said earlier, I have been working on an update for both stopping patterns and station histories tables (you can see my progress at User:ThylacineHunter/Lines/Metro#Cranbourne). I've been a little delayed due to Christmas and the time needed to look up correct info (eg opening dates - some on Wiki are wrong). I'm also rechecking the stopping patterns to the soon to be current (starting 6th Jan 2023) timetable (ignoring all the current holiday timetables that change daily). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do for reworking

  • Fix referencing and add references where needed
  • Add Sections
-History, Doing atm
-Services, Doing atm
-Infrastructure 
-Future
  • Add Pictures

NotOrrio (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Clean up

I have almost finished on reworking the article as much of the information is already in place, here are the final things to do before the rework is complete and the article is potentially eligable for GA status

  • Fix Grammar
  • Add pictures
  • Make the stations table more user friendly

NotOrrio (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

finished making the stations table more user friendly NotOrrio (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
grammar finished all the article needs now is some pictures NotOrrio (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infoboxes are both done (service and line)
  • Route maps are both done (service and line)
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cranbourne_line&oldid=1129802839"