Australia: Victoria / Transport Template‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Trains: Locomotives Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi there
I noticed you've set up a template that differentiates between steam and diesel power on the VR. I guess you're working towards a series of articles for the diesel electric fleet.
This raises an interesting problem, how do we classify the VR diesel (and for that matter, electric) fleet? The VR steam fleet was largely designed in-house, whereas the diesel fleet was largely bought from GM-EMD as off-the-shelf products. The VR K class steam locomotive has only ever been used in Victoria, whereas the VR T class diesel was an EMD G8 that was also sold around the world.
In articles I've created for the steam fleet, I've referenced the "T class" diesel for example as the EMD G8, pointing to the article created for that off-the-shelf GM-EMD product. Do you propose to create a series of articles for the diesel fleet based on the VR class name, or the GM-EMD product name? I guess the other issue to consider is, if you base your article names on the convention I've used for the steam fleet, how do you take into account for the fact that some were purchased by Victorian Railways (eg C class), and others were purchased by V/Line (eg N class)?
I'd been warming up to writing an article on some of the early VR diesel locos (eg B class, S class) and was pondering this point.
Zzrbiker 10:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll discuss it here rather than continue at my talk page. The shops of the same name, the 'plain' name is a disambiguation page, then they use the ship name and the year. Perhaps were should do this for all locos - Victorian Railways B class becomes as disambiguation, then we have Victorian Railways B class (18xx) for the steam and Victorian Railways B class (19xx) for the diesel? Or keep the (diesel) disambiguation, and use (steam) as well.
I think we should let a bit of discussion ensure before we go leaving a trail of redirects (though I have already contributed to that already!) Wongm ( talk) 07:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Taking Victorian Railways X class (diesel) as an example, it has a VR, V/Line, Freight Australia, Pacific National and QRNational locomotive. Shall we make a categories for each operator, and add each loco they operate to it? Or will this be to unwieldy? Another option is to just add a fleet list of the article on each operator? Wongm ( talk) 02:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
With the thing about the AA and B classes being pre-20th century, I now realize I was wrong about the AA's.
However, the B class should go into the pre-20th category, because they serviced from 1861 to 1881. Same for the C, J, M class suburban tank engines, and so on. More-or-less, the pre-20th was referring to when the locos were built, but I wasn't sure how to show this.
Also, all the locos from these companies:
- 2-2-2WT (x1), 2-4-0WT (x5), 0-4-0WT (x1), 2-4-0WT N Class (x5)
- 2-4-0 (x2), 2-4-0 (x2)
- 2-2-2 (x2), 2-2-2 (x2), 2-4-0T (x2), 0-6-0 (x4), 0-4-0 [Ariel] (x1)
- 2-4-0T (x2)
- 2-4-0ST (x3)
- 2-4-0 (x4), 4-4-0 C Class (x6), 0-4-0 Pier Donkey (x1)
Therefore, at the end, the M&HBUR Company had 28 locos.
When the VR abosrbed the M&HBUR in 1878, they built 5 new locos, no's 1-5 (yes, they overlapped numbers!)
BTW, I got all the above from "The First Fifty Years."
Steamtostay (
talk) 13:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think creating articles on each freight wagon is pretty crazy, and the only real source is the work of Peter J Vincent, including his website, and the 'Brief History' book series produced in association with Norm Bray.
However a page like Freight wagons of the Victorian Railways might work better, with details such as how four wheelers were first, continuous train brakes were introduced, the first bogies vehicles, removal of buffers, autocoupler introduction, the import of ACF wagons from the USA, moves to steel underframes, the rise of container traffics, the ubiquitous GY, the 1960s VR moves into regional manufacturing at Ballarat and Bendigo, the 1973 design bogie hopper used for umpteen types of traffic, the ROA 4 letter recoding, the GH conversions and the emergence of bogies grain vehicles and block trains, the elimination of four wheelers, the NR wagon transfers, and PN scrapping things today.
Big topic... Wongm ( talk) 12:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Steamtostay ( talk) 13:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The present number of pages is going a bit overboard - will the articles be anything other than a regurgitation of the work of Peter J Vincent, focusing on the conversion between classes? Or something more? Wongm ( talk) 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Article for the M, L and F wagons and bogie variations. Needs links, pictures figures, stats, degunzelling.
Steamtostay ( talk) 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Should all the narrow gauge rollingstock be grouped together, or split among the given broad gauge articles?
Steamtostay ( talk) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about the types of wagons, particularly in terms of the new hoppers article I'm writing.
Should we really be sorting by type/shape, or should we be looking at traffic carried? i.e. a page for ballast (and sleeper) transport, another for grain transport and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothersignalman ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The intention is that each of the traffic pages will either link directly to the only type of wagon qualified for that segment, i.e. the corpse, explosive and perishable pages (which I haven't linked properly, but I'm not sure how to code), while the rest will link to disambiguation-style pages with links to all the relevant classes (i.e. Gypsum would link to both the VOJF in open wagons, and VHJA wagons in the hopper page.
Anothersignalman ( talk) 12:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed wikilinks to most of the railway companies, but note the use of the ampersand in the template - when the articles use 'and'. This makes me think the links to the various locomotive class articles might be wrong also. Garyvines ( talk) 02:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
Looking for a ruling on the quality of references which can be used on detail articles, i.e. most of the articles linked to in this template. Placed here because it applies to all.
Question revolves around use of social media sites as reliable sources. It has been previously established that social media can be a reliable source, depending on the context: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_65#Reliability_of_social_media_sources_representing_companies
Further, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources says:
"Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)."
So therefore, a locked facebook group (and posts within) is no more or less reliable than an open group, and the group being closed is not in and of itself a reason to reject a source.
If "Verified Expert X" uses their verified Facebook account to discuss the topic they are an expert in, then that specific post should be considered a reliable source? How is it any different to the above case study with the Yarra Valley Railway's facebook page, which can be manually verified by checking previous posts for legitimate content?
Where should I list the personal facebook accounts which are controlled by people who are experts in this field as established by previous published works etc? For example, Daryl Gregory, who (in conjunction with others) published the books used as definitive sources for most of these articles. I'd posit that posts made by his facebook account should qualify as expert sources, and therefore be permitted.
So for example, a list could be:
URL to Group A
URL to Group B
URL to Group C
The list needs to be dynamic, with some sort of name submission system if reliable people create their first accounts, or if a person becomes reliable after getting promoted and gaining access to information.
Anothersignalman ( talk) 15:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
"So therefore, a locked facebook group (and posts within) is no more or less reliable than an open group, and the group being closed is not in and of itself a reason to reject a source."I don't have time right now to address everything in full but wanted to address this comment specifically. There is a difference between something being behind a paywall of a reliable source, like Wall Street Journal, for example and a closed facebook group. Whether it is open or closed is mostly irrelevant other than the fact that it is virtually inaccessible to someone IF the administrator decided they don't want that person to have access, whereas a paywall is technically accessible to *everyone*. Second, closed/open aside, it is a Facebook group. Period. It is not a published source. Subject matter experts may very well post there but it is not published material. Period. It also appears to me that you're asking in this RfC to vet individuals on Facebook for the purposes of being able to use them as a reliable source - if there is not published content to support something, perhaps it is not appropriate to be in an article but we as editors do not get to decide who is and is not an SME based on Facebook.
A few items to respond to:
1. Access - how is the access or not aspect any different to, say, a language barrier or region-lock barrier? Also, repeated from above:
"If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)."
2. Published material must form the basis for an article, but I think smaller details shouldn't be as stringent. As long as a source is provided, the reader can decide for themselves whether or not to trust that reference. Also, it's not like this stuff is life-or-death. Context is key, and that's why this sort of discussion DOES NOT set a precedent for, say, anti-vaccination idiots to copy their posts across to here.
3. Yes, I'm asking for a process to vet individual facebook (and forum in general) posters as experts within specific contexts.
4. In this case, the published content does not exist yet, but it will at some unidentified point in the future. Many of the articles refer primarily to the "brief history" series of books by Vincent, Gregory & Bray, but those books are a few years out of date so do not include changes between publication and current. Facebook is the only place that information is currently available, but hunting for individual posts by reputable authors (including Gregory, Leslie et al.) is awful; so when I find one I transfer the details here and include the URL. That's why the URLs are so complex, rather than just the group URL - they each link to the specific comment that makes the claim.
5. Identity theft on Facebook is harder than you seem to think. The posters are identified and you can check previous posts by the person to clarify that they are, in fact, who they say they are. Look for things like consistent posting formats or writing style. When someone has, say, five to ten years of reliable, accurate writings (regardless of medium), chances are they know what they're talking about. There is also an edit trail - if a post is edited, you can click it and see previous versions.
6. Re legal stuff, you're taking this too seriously. If it was say a medical trial or a safety-related issue then sure, you want a source that can stand up to legal scrutiny. When we're talking about the date a set of carriages was assembled, I don't think it matters nearly as much (unless a person was injured during the process, and then you'd wait for official reports to be publicly released).
Anothersignalman ( talk) 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as ... social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
"The reliable source (Daryl Gregory et al) has not yet had a chance to publish the content in a formal book."Books are not the only reliable source however if something is not yet available as a source, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a crystalball.
"The work of those experts has previously been published, by groups like the Australian Railway Historical Society and Newsrail."If that is the case, use that as a source, not Facebook.
"The linked accounts can be (fairly easily) verified as legitimately belonging to the experts."How? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I've made a significant reduction in the size of this template. As it stood it was bloated, full of hundreds of links of unclear connection pointing to only a few actual articles. Freight wagons in particular – there were over 150 individual links to only around 10 unique articles. This made the template effectively useless as a navigation tool.
Per
WP:NAV-WITHIN, we need to Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template
. I've stripped down the links so most articles are linked only once; some are repeated but only where they are in different top-level sections.
Per WP:EXISTING I've also removed large amounts of unlinked and redlinked text; in some cases I've left the redlink as an encouragement for the article to be created at a later date per WP:REDLINK.
Collapsible groups have been added as well; when this template is transcluded in future please use the selected=
paramter so the appropriate section is expanded.
The other significant change is I've made a move to a more descriptive but still short title; hopefully that will settle the name question. Triptothecottage ( talk) 03:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of a navigation box is to provide a tool to navigate between similar articles. So unless an entry has an article to link to, then it is useless. The suggestion that most other Australian railway related navigational boxes contain redlinks is untrue, all of the other equivalent navboxes for Australia, NSW, Qld, SA and WA have none. Redlinks are fine if editors are actively in the process of creating the articles, but not as a list of articles they would like to see created, so if you want to add, write the article first and then there will be no reason to not include. Murina77 ( talk) 18:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Unlinked text should be avoided. Favonian ( talk) 18:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
-- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 11:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Please see discussions about improving the other navboxes about rail vehicles for the Western Australian one (link), the NSW one (link), and the New Zealand one (link). I think that the Victorian style is one that the others could emulate. I haven't included QLD, TAS or SA as I think their navboxes are sufficiently small enough that they're fine to read. Fork99 ( talk) 14:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Australia: Victoria / Transport Template‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Trains: Locomotives Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi there
I noticed you've set up a template that differentiates between steam and diesel power on the VR. I guess you're working towards a series of articles for the diesel electric fleet.
This raises an interesting problem, how do we classify the VR diesel (and for that matter, electric) fleet? The VR steam fleet was largely designed in-house, whereas the diesel fleet was largely bought from GM-EMD as off-the-shelf products. The VR K class steam locomotive has only ever been used in Victoria, whereas the VR T class diesel was an EMD G8 that was also sold around the world.
In articles I've created for the steam fleet, I've referenced the "T class" diesel for example as the EMD G8, pointing to the article created for that off-the-shelf GM-EMD product. Do you propose to create a series of articles for the diesel fleet based on the VR class name, or the GM-EMD product name? I guess the other issue to consider is, if you base your article names on the convention I've used for the steam fleet, how do you take into account for the fact that some were purchased by Victorian Railways (eg C class), and others were purchased by V/Line (eg N class)?
I'd been warming up to writing an article on some of the early VR diesel locos (eg B class, S class) and was pondering this point.
Zzrbiker 10:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll discuss it here rather than continue at my talk page. The shops of the same name, the 'plain' name is a disambiguation page, then they use the ship name and the year. Perhaps were should do this for all locos - Victorian Railways B class becomes as disambiguation, then we have Victorian Railways B class (18xx) for the steam and Victorian Railways B class (19xx) for the diesel? Or keep the (diesel) disambiguation, and use (steam) as well.
I think we should let a bit of discussion ensure before we go leaving a trail of redirects (though I have already contributed to that already!) Wongm ( talk) 07:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Taking Victorian Railways X class (diesel) as an example, it has a VR, V/Line, Freight Australia, Pacific National and QRNational locomotive. Shall we make a categories for each operator, and add each loco they operate to it? Or will this be to unwieldy? Another option is to just add a fleet list of the article on each operator? Wongm ( talk) 02:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
With the thing about the AA and B classes being pre-20th century, I now realize I was wrong about the AA's.
However, the B class should go into the pre-20th category, because they serviced from 1861 to 1881. Same for the C, J, M class suburban tank engines, and so on. More-or-less, the pre-20th was referring to when the locos were built, but I wasn't sure how to show this.
Also, all the locos from these companies:
- 2-2-2WT (x1), 2-4-0WT (x5), 0-4-0WT (x1), 2-4-0WT N Class (x5)
- 2-4-0 (x2), 2-4-0 (x2)
- 2-2-2 (x2), 2-2-2 (x2), 2-4-0T (x2), 0-6-0 (x4), 0-4-0 [Ariel] (x1)
- 2-4-0T (x2)
- 2-4-0ST (x3)
- 2-4-0 (x4), 4-4-0 C Class (x6), 0-4-0 Pier Donkey (x1)
Therefore, at the end, the M&HBUR Company had 28 locos.
When the VR abosrbed the M&HBUR in 1878, they built 5 new locos, no's 1-5 (yes, they overlapped numbers!)
BTW, I got all the above from "The First Fifty Years."
Steamtostay (
talk) 13:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think creating articles on each freight wagon is pretty crazy, and the only real source is the work of Peter J Vincent, including his website, and the 'Brief History' book series produced in association with Norm Bray.
However a page like Freight wagons of the Victorian Railways might work better, with details such as how four wheelers were first, continuous train brakes were introduced, the first bogies vehicles, removal of buffers, autocoupler introduction, the import of ACF wagons from the USA, moves to steel underframes, the rise of container traffics, the ubiquitous GY, the 1960s VR moves into regional manufacturing at Ballarat and Bendigo, the 1973 design bogie hopper used for umpteen types of traffic, the ROA 4 letter recoding, the GH conversions and the emergence of bogies grain vehicles and block trains, the elimination of four wheelers, the NR wagon transfers, and PN scrapping things today.
Big topic... Wongm ( talk) 12:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Steamtostay ( talk) 13:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The present number of pages is going a bit overboard - will the articles be anything other than a regurgitation of the work of Peter J Vincent, focusing on the conversion between classes? Or something more? Wongm ( talk) 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Article for the M, L and F wagons and bogie variations. Needs links, pictures figures, stats, degunzelling.
Steamtostay ( talk) 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Should all the narrow gauge rollingstock be grouped together, or split among the given broad gauge articles?
Steamtostay ( talk) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about the types of wagons, particularly in terms of the new hoppers article I'm writing.
Should we really be sorting by type/shape, or should we be looking at traffic carried? i.e. a page for ballast (and sleeper) transport, another for grain transport and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothersignalman ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The intention is that each of the traffic pages will either link directly to the only type of wagon qualified for that segment, i.e. the corpse, explosive and perishable pages (which I haven't linked properly, but I'm not sure how to code), while the rest will link to disambiguation-style pages with links to all the relevant classes (i.e. Gypsum would link to both the VOJF in open wagons, and VHJA wagons in the hopper page.
Anothersignalman ( talk) 12:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed wikilinks to most of the railway companies, but note the use of the ampersand in the template - when the articles use 'and'. This makes me think the links to the various locomotive class articles might be wrong also. Garyvines ( talk) 02:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
Looking for a ruling on the quality of references which can be used on detail articles, i.e. most of the articles linked to in this template. Placed here because it applies to all.
Question revolves around use of social media sites as reliable sources. It has been previously established that social media can be a reliable source, depending on the context: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_65#Reliability_of_social_media_sources_representing_companies
Further, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources says:
"Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)."
So therefore, a locked facebook group (and posts within) is no more or less reliable than an open group, and the group being closed is not in and of itself a reason to reject a source.
If "Verified Expert X" uses their verified Facebook account to discuss the topic they are an expert in, then that specific post should be considered a reliable source? How is it any different to the above case study with the Yarra Valley Railway's facebook page, which can be manually verified by checking previous posts for legitimate content?
Where should I list the personal facebook accounts which are controlled by people who are experts in this field as established by previous published works etc? For example, Daryl Gregory, who (in conjunction with others) published the books used as definitive sources for most of these articles. I'd posit that posts made by his facebook account should qualify as expert sources, and therefore be permitted.
So for example, a list could be:
URL to Group A
URL to Group B
URL to Group C
The list needs to be dynamic, with some sort of name submission system if reliable people create their first accounts, or if a person becomes reliable after getting promoted and gaining access to information.
Anothersignalman ( talk) 15:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
"So therefore, a locked facebook group (and posts within) is no more or less reliable than an open group, and the group being closed is not in and of itself a reason to reject a source."I don't have time right now to address everything in full but wanted to address this comment specifically. There is a difference between something being behind a paywall of a reliable source, like Wall Street Journal, for example and a closed facebook group. Whether it is open or closed is mostly irrelevant other than the fact that it is virtually inaccessible to someone IF the administrator decided they don't want that person to have access, whereas a paywall is technically accessible to *everyone*. Second, closed/open aside, it is a Facebook group. Period. It is not a published source. Subject matter experts may very well post there but it is not published material. Period. It also appears to me that you're asking in this RfC to vet individuals on Facebook for the purposes of being able to use them as a reliable source - if there is not published content to support something, perhaps it is not appropriate to be in an article but we as editors do not get to decide who is and is not an SME based on Facebook.
A few items to respond to:
1. Access - how is the access or not aspect any different to, say, a language barrier or region-lock barrier? Also, repeated from above:
"If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)."
2. Published material must form the basis for an article, but I think smaller details shouldn't be as stringent. As long as a source is provided, the reader can decide for themselves whether or not to trust that reference. Also, it's not like this stuff is life-or-death. Context is key, and that's why this sort of discussion DOES NOT set a precedent for, say, anti-vaccination idiots to copy their posts across to here.
3. Yes, I'm asking for a process to vet individual facebook (and forum in general) posters as experts within specific contexts.
4. In this case, the published content does not exist yet, but it will at some unidentified point in the future. Many of the articles refer primarily to the "brief history" series of books by Vincent, Gregory & Bray, but those books are a few years out of date so do not include changes between publication and current. Facebook is the only place that information is currently available, but hunting for individual posts by reputable authors (including Gregory, Leslie et al.) is awful; so when I find one I transfer the details here and include the URL. That's why the URLs are so complex, rather than just the group URL - they each link to the specific comment that makes the claim.
5. Identity theft on Facebook is harder than you seem to think. The posters are identified and you can check previous posts by the person to clarify that they are, in fact, who they say they are. Look for things like consistent posting formats or writing style. When someone has, say, five to ten years of reliable, accurate writings (regardless of medium), chances are they know what they're talking about. There is also an edit trail - if a post is edited, you can click it and see previous versions.
6. Re legal stuff, you're taking this too seriously. If it was say a medical trial or a safety-related issue then sure, you want a source that can stand up to legal scrutiny. When we're talking about the date a set of carriages was assembled, I don't think it matters nearly as much (unless a person was injured during the process, and then you'd wait for official reports to be publicly released).
Anothersignalman ( talk) 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as ... social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
"The reliable source (Daryl Gregory et al) has not yet had a chance to publish the content in a formal book."Books are not the only reliable source however if something is not yet available as a source, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a crystalball.
"The work of those experts has previously been published, by groups like the Australian Railway Historical Society and Newsrail."If that is the case, use that as a source, not Facebook.
"The linked accounts can be (fairly easily) verified as legitimately belonging to the experts."How? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I've made a significant reduction in the size of this template. As it stood it was bloated, full of hundreds of links of unclear connection pointing to only a few actual articles. Freight wagons in particular – there were over 150 individual links to only around 10 unique articles. This made the template effectively useless as a navigation tool.
Per
WP:NAV-WITHIN, we need to Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template
. I've stripped down the links so most articles are linked only once; some are repeated but only where they are in different top-level sections.
Per WP:EXISTING I've also removed large amounts of unlinked and redlinked text; in some cases I've left the redlink as an encouragement for the article to be created at a later date per WP:REDLINK.
Collapsible groups have been added as well; when this template is transcluded in future please use the selected=
paramter so the appropriate section is expanded.
The other significant change is I've made a move to a more descriptive but still short title; hopefully that will settle the name question. Triptothecottage ( talk) 03:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of a navigation box is to provide a tool to navigate between similar articles. So unless an entry has an article to link to, then it is useless. The suggestion that most other Australian railway related navigational boxes contain redlinks is untrue, all of the other equivalent navboxes for Australia, NSW, Qld, SA and WA have none. Redlinks are fine if editors are actively in the process of creating the articles, but not as a list of articles they would like to see created, so if you want to add, write the article first and then there will be no reason to not include. Murina77 ( talk) 18:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Unlinked text should be avoided. Favonian ( talk) 18:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
-- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 11:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Please see discussions about improving the other navboxes about rail vehicles for the Western Australian one (link), the NSW one (link), and the New Zealand one (link). I think that the Victorian style is one that the others could emulate. I haven't included QLD, TAS or SA as I think their navboxes are sufficiently small enough that they're fine to read. Fork99 ( talk) 14:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)