This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: New South Wales / Transport Mid‑importance Main Southern railway line, New South Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Trains Low‑importance Trains Portal DYK 2007-09-29 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Main Southern railway line, New South Wales.

The use of a template to include the image, dates, gauge, etc is incorrect. An Infobox in the main article is the correct method and included additional information. The template should only be used for the route diagram, per others in [[Category:Templates for railway lines of Australia]]. Dbromage [Talk] 06:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and no doubt you made those changes to all those without any discussion. Bidgee (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. If you think these changes are incorrect or controversial, please state why. The edits are entirely within Wikipedia policies. Dbromage [Talk] 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should know by now that when something is disputed that you need a consensus for such a bold change. Bidgee (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia encourages bold updating. You are the only one disputing the changes but you have not said what it is you are actually disputing. So tell us, which part of the additional referenced material in the article and template do you claim to be incorrect (and thus why the referenced third party sources are incorrect), why it is controversial to add additional referenced material and why it is inappropriate to use the correct Infobox for this article? You have not assumed good faith and you have now removed material referenced by reliable sources. Dbromage [Talk] 06:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! You've failed to follow WP:BOLD and WP:AGF yourself. You're doing huge changes without any discussion with anyone. Bidgee (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one disputing the changes but you have not said what it is you are actually disputing. I will ask you again. Which part of the additional material referenced by reliable sources in the article and template do you claim to be incorrect, why it is controversial to add additional referenced material and why it is inappropriate to use the correct Infobox for this article? Dbromage [Talk] 07:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am uninvolved in this so I hope I can provide an objective view. The changes seem to be very informative, accurate, well sourced, add missing information, correct errors and put a badly formatted template into the correct format. I cannot see why this would be disputed. Bidgee has, despite numerous requests, failed to state exactly what content is in dispute and what the objection is beyond "it wasn't discussed". ShipFan (Talk) 11:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to one person claiming a content dispute for uncontroversial content referenced by reliable sources, but not actually saying what was in dispute and continually reverting, I will delay correction of errors and omissions from this article until a third party reviews the proposed changes. The proposed changes are in User:Dbromage/sandbox/Main Southern railway line, New South Wales and User:Dbromage/sandbox/Template Main Southern railway line, New South Wales

Article:

• Adds ((Infobox rail line)). Current usage of ((Main South line)) to convey this information is incorrect.
• Adds information to ((Infobox rail line)) which is not in the currently template.
• Adds information about the original John Whitton alignment and references information about duplication and deviations.
• There are other factual errors in the text I have not got around to correcting yet, e.g. claims the Bombala line did not have major freight traffic (it was one of the busiest lines in the state during the Snowy Mountains Scheme).

Template:

• Adopts correct use of rail icons per Wikipedia:Route diagram template and shows the route diagram only
• Header in green to match the CityRail/Countrylink route, per other NSW railway line templates
• Adds the missing John Whitton alignments and shows deviations, including a new deviation (Redbank Tunnel) completed in 2012
• Adds several missing stations
• Adds several missing features, including two major rivers
• Corrects some incorrectly named features
• Adds distances taken from the Australian Rail Track Corporation curve and gradient book
• Adds official names of junctions taken from the Australian Rail Track Corporation curve and gradient book
• Adds missing branch lines and connecting tramways referenced in other articles
• Adds accessibility information taken from Countrylink

Note that both must be changed as the template is referenced inline in the article. Changing one and not the other will either break or duplicate information.

I welcome third party comments on the proposed changes. Dbromage [Talk] 07:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - generally, I'm inclined to think that when one person adds something and another expresses concern about the addition (for whatever reason, or even no reason at all) it should prompt a talk page discussion. Beyond the WP:EW, hopefully everyone can move forward now that we're here. I am keen to understand what the objections might be and am also keen to understand what WP:MOS or project-specific style work prompted the changes in the first place (beyond those that seek to simply update things). Stalwart111 10:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've looked through the history of I'm at a loss to understand what possible objection there could be. All the proposed changes seem sensible and are properly sourced. I have looked at related articles and they have similar issues with formatting and style. I would hate to see further improvements like this delayed or even obstructed by unspecified and unnecessary disputes. The only actual complaint is "it hasn't been formatted that way in the past". So what? If you look at Wikipedia:Route diagram template the current formatting is wrong. It should not be necessary to go to these lengths to make improvements. ShipFan (Talk) 11:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Note: User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Dbromage.--v/r - TP 22:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the proposed changes look reasonable to me.--Grahame (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For comparison sake, the various articles on German railway lines have adopted the 'infobox with line diagram' format - example: Nuremberg–Würzburg_railway. While Japan and France both use an infobox with the separate line diagram in an expand panel - example Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit Rinkai Line and Paris–Lille railway. As for the proposed changes, I think the altered layout works better than the previous formatting. Wongm (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Main Southern railway line, New South Wales. 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/20080530050949/http://www.victorianrailways.net/vr%20history/history.html to http://www.victorianrailways.net/vr%20history/history.html

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) 17:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]