Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand Railways

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descendant of WikiProject Trains?

Is this project a descendant or WikiProject Trains? It makes sense to work with them. It should be noted somewhere, as all the NZR articles also fall under WikiProject Trains. --Lee Begg 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Slambo at WP:TWP, to add WikiProject NZR as a WikiProject Trains Descendant Wikiprojects. that way when you tag talk pages with the TWP banner ({{TrainsWikiProject}}you can add "NZ=yes" or something). Pickle 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me contacted (this page is currently on my watch list).

You don't need my permission to add this as a descendant project to TWP if you want; just add it to the TWP project page as linked above. Work up an icon and I'll add it to {{TrainsWikiProject}}, and I can add NZR-specific importance flags as well like we've already got for others (like NYPT or WPLT; WPTIS is in the process of adding the categories now too). Slambo (Speak) 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little New Zealand flag (see "Image:Flag of New Zealand.svg") (like the scottish sub project) suit me best, but "Image:JA1271 Opapa 16Feb2003 JChristianson.jpg" is on the current banner (dosen't scream New Zealand to me at 50px.... Slambo could you do "NZ-importance=" bit as well. Pickle 01:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the British blue ensign doesn't scream NZ at me either... --Lholden 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had I been aware of the ability to add "NZ-importance=" to {{TrainsWikiProject}} at the time I made {{WikiProject NZR}}, I probably would have simply requested it added rather than making a whole new template. That said, I feel there are some advantages to an individualised template now, so I wouldn't advocate its removal. And I feel the picture on the banner with the traditional red carriages and a J^A class locomotive absolutely screams New Zealand; it's one of the first things I think of when I think NZR. If we need a small logo for the TWP template, I don't think the current New Zealand flag is appropriate (I don't identify with it and I suspect Lewis doesn't either), but I would support the use of a silver fern. - Axver 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said the NZ flag as to those of us not in NZ it gives a clue, obviously there are "issues" about it (don't go there we've had so much fun with the UK's own internal constitutional arrangements). I think the silver fern is OK as most of us up here get that (i hope they do anyway!). As for the {{TrainsWikiProject}}, the ability to have multiple "Descendants" within is really useful, for example East Croydon station, which is in a few! More generally IMHO the {{TrainsWikiProject}} allows the tagging user to explicit the functionality of the template and add many bits of info, such as map or image needed, the various task forces, unref, etc - which i feel is useful for the casual editor seeking the help as opposed to the "basic" project banner. Pickle 02:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - Would it be hard to do? Or do we simply put a request in that it be added? --Lholden 22:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not overwhelmingly difficult. I'm already working on a similar update to the template for UK rails, and adding the params for NZR at the same time would help to minimize the server load once the changes go live. Slambo (Speak) 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've got the basic class and importance settings for NZR params to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} working in my test space now. The proposed params are:

NZR=yes indicates that the article is within NZR's scope
NZR-importance=[low|mid|high|top] indicates the importance within NZR independent of TWP.

Both the NZR-importance and the preexisting class parameters will sort articles into the appropriate NZR quality (stub/start/B/GA/A/FA) and importance categories, which I have yet to set up. Now, a couple further questions... First, do you also want to track articles that are marked with a non-quality class (template/category/image/disambig/redirect)? Right now, the test template will not sort into NZR-specific categories for these non-quality classes, but it's very easy to add. Second, what format should we follow for the category names? For testing, I put the quality category names as Foo-Class NZR articles and the importance category names as Foo-Importance NZR articles, but it seems to me that we should expand the acronym for the category names so they are more explanatory when the bot runs and accumulates the statistics for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index and associated pages. Slambo (Speak) 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its nice to have that useibility of "template/category/image/disambig/redirect" et al. Pickle 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but what you've done looks good. --Lholden 23:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The updates are now live. Use NZR=yes to indicate the article is within the scope of this project and NZR-importance=yes to indicate the article's importance within this project. These parameters will sort articles into the appropriate subcategories of Category:WikiProject New Zealand Railways articles. Slambo 42 19:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (using my unprivileged account because I'm on a public wireless access point right now)[reply]

THanks for your work (been away for a few days ;) ), i'll get on working through them. Pickle 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Station infobox

Currently we're using a manual table, why haven't we been using one of the template out there, the main one bing {{tl:Infobox Station}}, but local customisation exists, eg {{tl:Infobox UK station}} and {{tl:Infobox London station}}. Similarly are there station usage statistics to quote ??? Pickle 14:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind adding an Infobox to station articles I've written, but are you suggesting that before that is done that a NZ-customised template should be created for such articles?

The only usage statistics for stations in the Wellington region that I am aware of are Trip and passenger numbers and Interesting facts. It may be possible to obtain more detailed information directly from Greater Wellington Regional Council. -- Matthew25187 00:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be useful also as a number of statements made about patronage of various stations should be verified. --Lholden 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an Infobox Station table to the Greytown Railway Station article to see what it looks like. If there is to be NZ customisations of this template, should that include templates for both open and disused stations, and regional variations, i.e. separate Auckland and Wellington templates? -- Matthew25187 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greytown Railway Station is a good example of using the generic one (which may be too US centric). The Auckland area has one built out of a table that doesn't tell anybody much. What I'm getting at is should we build a NZ specific one capable of use by the 3 passenger train operators (ie use/access different statistics, timetables, etc), the closed stations, and the heritage railway operators *OR* build specific ones for each passenger train operators and just use the generic one for closed/heritage lines? Also i feel that some of the fields in the generic {{tl:Infobox Station}}, may not be really useful in a new Zealand context and/or we need to standardise the "answers" so they are useful. Pickle 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the generic Infobox Station template could be improved upon for the New Zealand context, but I have concerns about station templates specific to particular operators (or services for that matter). How could such templates adequately handle the situation of a station being serviced by multiple operators, e.g. Takapu Road to Palmerston North in Wellington (MetLink/Tranz Metro, Tranz Scenic) or Britomart to Pukekohe in Auckland (Veolia, Tranz Scenic)? Would not regional-themed templates be less ambiguous? -- Matthew25187 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a play with a NZ wide one to start with. As to multiple operators at one station, I'll have to did up what the Americans do. I know they've managed to integrate tube and network rail ones over here (UK). Pickle 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK done some digging, and at a guess these features look useful and usable (using Wellington Railway Station as an example ;

name = Wellington image = [[Image:WellingtonRailwayStation 14May2003 JChristianson.jpg]] image_size = 300px caption = Wellington Railway Station at night manager = ? owner = [[ONTRACK]] ? locale = [[Wellington]] borough = [[Wellington Region]] platforms = 7 ? years = 1937 events = Opened coordinates = {{coor title dms|41|16|43|S|174|46|51|E|region:NZ-WGN_type:landmark}} exits = 20,000 passengers

importantly the "exits" option appears to be an old option from the UK pre use of government annual statics for ever station (which we appear to lack here, also all other option trigger a lot of complex code!)

the "borough" tag should be renamed but I'm not sure what you chaps call your boroughs/counties/whatever

the "owner" / "manager" bit is interesting - over here the main passenger service operator at a station "manages" the station (rented from track owner), while the track owner runs the major terminals. services from other passenger operators use other passenger operator owned stations (does that make any sense?!)

thought on these ? Pickle 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC) the "events" bit ("years" and "events") can be expanded for numerous events (ie opened, closed, reopened, etc). Its more useful than "start" in some cases but perhaps more complex.[reply]

There is no national consistency in NZ for statistics on railway station patronage (that I am aware of). If such statistics are collected, it is likely to be done by the relevant local government entity, using whatever methodology they have chosen. Ticket sales are not a useful measure of patronage, as few stations are staffed these days, and even of those that are staffed, I can't be sure that they all offer ticket sales.

Boroughs are not a concept we have in NZ these days (having been abolished in 1989), and provinces were abolished in the 19th century. Perhaps a suitable label would be Local Government Jurisdiction?

Railway station ownership in NZ is a mixture of railway operators, local government and central government. Since the creation of ONTRACK, ownership of the track is not tied to ownership of the stations.

I'd have also thought the following tags from the Infobox Station template would still be useful in the NZ context: services, line, electrified, zone, former. The line tag would make more sense if it referred to railway lines and branches served by a station rather than services or "brand names" invented by operators. -- Matthew25187 04:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK i can see "lines" as in one of the 3 in Auckland, 5/6 in Wellington, but I'm not sure how having several lines at one station would affect it and how long distance operators (ie the Overlander) would affect it. The "services" option would affect this one too.

I'm not sure if electrification is really relevant but we can have it (at a guess only for the Wairarapa Line stations is it useful as these are out of the local context - also some place see diesel and electric service). also an agree format would be needed - ie is it yes/no, or a years field, will it give 1500 V DC overhead, or 25kV AC overhead, etc.

"Zones" - do you have zones? (i presume like London does with 1-6, and A-D with some station on zone border qualify for both).

As for the local government is this Regions of New Zealand the right answer for describing locations ? Or Is this right Administrative divisions of New Zealand and i might need to list additional (or just on its own) the second tier (Territorial authorities of New Zealand) ???

Pickle 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of my concerns with Station Infoboxes for multiple operators or services is that if you start including relevant logos for the operators/services or other such images, the Infobox could, for some stations, become quite large with the Infobox then competing with the main article body in terms of space occupied. Perhaps you had something different in mind? Also, with operator specific templates, wouldn't you end up creating and maintaining quite a few combinations to cover all cases, e.g. a Tranz Metro template wouldn't be enough, because you'd also need a Tranz Metro/Tranz Scenic template, likewise, Veolia and Veolia/Tranz Scenic templates, etc.

If information on electrification is to be included at a station level, it'd make more sense to list the year that electrification reached the station than a simple yes/no. For example, though most of the Wellington regional rail network is electrified, the central government has recently announced an investment programme for rail transport in Wellington including an extension of electrification from Mackays Crossing to Waikanae.

Fare zones for train travel are used in both Wellington and Auckland. I have seen fare zone maps somewhere, but can't seem to remember where.

Services and lines definitely belong to regional authorities, but stations could be associated with either regional authorities (in the case of Wellington, the GWRC owns a couple of stations) or territorial authorities (responsible for funding and arranging for improvements to stations and ancillary facilities). In Auckland, ARTNL is responsible for maintaining and upgrading railway stations and is also the lease-holder on them. -- Matthew25187 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers that makes more sense now. I hope not to make the box to long, and the the diffrent trian operators shouldn't make the box to long. Use of logos is ify as it normally dosne't meet the "fair use" cireteria (as the images are copyright). Pickle 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have received a set of station patronage statistics for the Wellington suburban rail network compiled from surveys undertaken in late 2006. Not sure how useful the numbers will be though, as they only cover morning peak time suburban services over two days. -- Matthew25187 20:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding some patronage info to the existing Infobox in the Upper Hutt Railway Station article, but I kept getting an "Expression error: Unexpected > operator" error every time I specified a number for the passengers parameter. Not sure what the problem is. -- Matthew25187 07:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NZR importance clarification

I've just been browsing the Category:New Zealand Railways articles by importance category, and I'm a bit puzzled by inconsistency of the importance. For example: Main South Line is High, but Main North Line is Mid (Main North Line carries passengers, Main South doesn't). Another example: Britomart Transport Centre (top), Wellington Railway Station (high). Do we need to clarify the importance classification, or should I just change them as I see fit? --Lee Begg 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please change them as you see fit. The idea is it allows article to be classed in their importance of New Zealand railways as a whole rather than in worldwide perspective. i did a huge mass of them at once and wasn't particularly consistent in the rankings of importance, so a better / expert / just anther pair of eyes view on this would be greatly appreciated. As far as i can gather, article like "rail transport in new Zealand" is undoubtedly top, and should be this project first job on advancing to GA or even FA status, followed by "high" rating for stuff like the NIMT, the Midland Line, etc. Pickle 02:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this discussion last time around, sorry. I'd just like to respond to one point regarding the Main South and North Lines. I've been tempted to put the MNL on an equal footing with the MSL, but I've held off because historically, the MSL has been one of New Zealand's most important lines (in fact, it was the first complete trunk route), while the MNL took over 70 years to finish, during which there were multiple suggestions that it should be abandoned. Its importance really only was firmly established when the RORO Interislander ferries were established in the sixties, and if they vanished, I wonder just how long the MNL would last. I would definitely expect its closure northwards beyond Blenheim.

That said, maybe we should try to make importance more clear - simply, every main line is of high importance, including the MNL; every secondary main line is of mid importance (except the Midland Line and perhaps the Stillwater - Westport Line, which is essentially a continuation of the Midland Line); and with few exceptions, branch lines are low importance. Locomotives are a bit more difficult. Classes like the F, Q, 1906 A, Ab, DA, and DX are clearly very important. Others, however, are a bit more difficult ... the N class, for instance, is low importance until you factor in WMR No. 10's position in history. - Axver 01:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'ld agree with that Pickle 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARTA07

I'm a little wary of this users recent edits, one might suspect this is a member of the organisation editing their own articles. Could one of you Kiwis have a look as i fear either a polical motive or just a plain conflict of intrest. Pickle 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article naming

Several articles I wrote use a naming convention that is inconsistent with the Manual of style. I propose to move (rename) these articles to be consistent with this standard. This would affect the following articles:

If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make the change. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits

I would just like to draw the attention of the WP:NZR membership to the edits of 210.54.6.37. This particular anonymous editor has been editing NZR articles from that IP for a decent period of time, and they are beginning to concern me. Not all of this user's edits are cause for concern - they often clarify phrasing and occasionally add information. However, they sometimes simplify or rephrase articles in a manner that reduces clarity and, in some cases, removes information altogether. This editor appears to have an attitude that shorter phrasing is always preferable; I would thoroughly disagree with this view and in some cases have restored phrasing to lengthier forms that I believe flow better and convey information to the reader with greater depth and clarity. I am primarily concerned with those edits that, for the sake of shorter phrasing, cut information - one example I am yet to find the time to fix is Ngapara and Tokarahi Branches (a full revert does not seem wise as some changes do improve phrasing).

I would discuss this with the user in question, but I note other editors have communicated on User talk:210.54.6.37 and received no response. Accordingly, I figured the best route would be to make you lot aware so that any detrimental edits are quickly copyedited or reverted. - Axver (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]