Victor Harbor railway line 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
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
The SAR called this line the Victor Harbour railway line. The station was also named in the same fashion. Which way should this article be named?
Ozdaren (
talk)
13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Good question!
Do you have a reference we can quote that demonstrates SAR use of the "u"?
If so, having a Victor Harbour railway line going to Victor Harbour railway station seems, to me, to be a good idea.
However, having a Victor Harbour railway line going to Victor Harbor seems likely to result in endless confusion and discussion. Even more so, having a Victor Harbour railway station in Victor Harbor!
Never-the-less, for-what-it's-worth, if we have supporting evidence, I still think that having a Victor Harbour railway line going to Victor Harbour railway station is the best solution.
I have photos from the 1980s and ammonia prints from the original blue prints from the STA/ANR (formerly SAR) plans office in Adelaide Station. Is that original research?
Ozdaren (
talk)
01:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Is that original research? - It depends how you use the information. The blueprints are documents, so you can validly cite them without problem. If you want to word your copyright to allow it, the photos can be used to illustrate, but there are those who argue that reading from a photo is different to reading from a piece of paper, and as you suggest, classify it as
WP:OR.
Pdfpdf (
talk)
02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)reply
This is also around the time the ALP started spelling labour as labor. It must have seemed a more modern or contemporary way of doing it. Perhaps as a way of compromise the u spelling could be mentioned as a secondary spelling.
Ozdaren (
talk)
07:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Victor Harbor railway line 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
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
The SAR called this line the Victor Harbour railway line. The station was also named in the same fashion. Which way should this article be named?
Ozdaren (
talk)
13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Good question!
Do you have a reference we can quote that demonstrates SAR use of the "u"?
If so, having a Victor Harbour railway line going to Victor Harbour railway station seems, to me, to be a good idea.
However, having a Victor Harbour railway line going to Victor Harbor seems likely to result in endless confusion and discussion. Even more so, having a Victor Harbour railway station in Victor Harbor!
Never-the-less, for-what-it's-worth, if we have supporting evidence, I still think that having a Victor Harbour railway line going to Victor Harbour railway station is the best solution.
I have photos from the 1980s and ammonia prints from the original blue prints from the STA/ANR (formerly SAR) plans office in Adelaide Station. Is that original research?
Ozdaren (
talk)
01:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Is that original research? - It depends how you use the information. The blueprints are documents, so you can validly cite them without problem. If you want to word your copyright to allow it, the photos can be used to illustrate, but there are those who argue that reading from a photo is different to reading from a piece of paper, and as you suggest, classify it as
WP:OR.
Pdfpdf (
talk)
02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)reply
This is also around the time the ALP started spelling labour as labor. It must have seemed a more modern or contemporary way of doing it. Perhaps as a way of compromise the u spelling could be mentioned as a secondary spelling.
Ozdaren (
talk)
07:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)reply