User talk:MrHarper/Archive 1

Railboxes for CityRail

Hi MrHarper, I've seen your updates to the CityRail rail boxes and I have to say they look good! Only two suggestions for the moment: 1. Any way to distinguish between the Suburban lines and the Intercity lines? 2. For the "Epping-Chatswood Line", for future purposes (because the line will be integrated with the Northern Line), the way the directions are set makes sense at Chatswood (Preceding station = the one towards City, Following station = the one away from city). However, when it gets to Epping, the directions are reversed when compared to the Northern Line and Newcastle & Central Coast line. Personally I think that the North Shore line had it's direction reversed, hence the direction problem flowing on at Hornsby and Epping. Any way to fix that? Cheers for the changes! --Pikablu0530 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the distinction between Western and North Shore lines would be either at Central, or North Sydney (as the "Western Line" timetable officially states Emu Plains or Richmond to North Sydney, even though the trains continues on up the North Shore) Possibly have to make a choice there. Looking at the CityRail Stations template at the bottom however, it seems like in Wikipedia the lines are distinguished at Central. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great work I love what you've done. One more thing I've noticed, just a reminder that there is a guide in regards to the order of the lines (from top to bottom). However in the mean time don't worry about it and I will help out reordering them when I get the time. Keep up with the good work. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right. Feel free to revert my edits. I think I was thinking too far ahead. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to railboxes

You had better watch out re your edits to Sydney railboxes, you will get your head bitten off! I tried a little while ago. Regards, Endarrt (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good. Can you please try and put in that the East Hills Line via Sydenham is peak hours only at present? (Same with the North Shore line past Berowra when you get round to it). Additionally, Mackensen who started these boxes and others including myself agreed to insert the different lines in the City Circle box. It's not appropriate to just list it as "City Circle" when there's no mention of the different lines that go clockwise for some and anticlockwise for others. JRG (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but two suggestions. Firstly, change the colour of the CC box to black - it's too close to the Carlingford Line colour. Secondly, indicate that the Bankstown and Airport/EH line runs anticlockwise and the other two lines run clockwise. JRG (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and make the metro box the same as the others; and get rid of the orange colour (it's not official - make it black too as has been done on the station infoboxes). JRG (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My tone? Don't be ridiculous. I'm giving helpful suggestions to you - I don't see anyone else doing that - do you? After all, I made the existing boxes so I'm entitled to comment on them when they are changed. JRG (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more request - on all pages please use {{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}} so it doesn't break the text until the end of the infobox. It's especially bad if you don't use it on smaller pages. JRG (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Editing Template:S-line/CityRail right/AirportEHpeak

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Somno (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the template message above, I saw the page and assumed it was by a new editor. What is the page for? Somno (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney railways

Restored, thanks for the note. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sydneylink

Actually it's used at more places - the homepage of SydneyLink already mentions "MetroLink". The official brochure's frontpage has the word MetroLink on the bottom right corner - highlighting its significance. How I understand it is that "SydneyLink" includes a series of Metro projects (MetroLink) plus other projects such as the SWRL and the M4 extension and possibly more. Of course this whole idea is probably abandoned now. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposals

I don't know where to respond to all the merger proposals for all the stations (they "discuss" link is all over the place) so I'll talk here instead. Hope you don't mind.

Firstly, I don't think the North West Metro article should be merged as it has enough information to sustain its own page, and also particularly because of the historical info in it regarding the original North West Rail Link. Proposed railway links that never came to life still deserves to have their own page.

Secondly, with all the metro station mergers, I don't mind them being merged, but should all be merged into the North West Metro article instead of the Proposed railways in Sydney article. Hope this explains my view regarding the merger proposals. Cheers. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

What do you mean? INTGAFW (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think you have the right to tell people off all the time. Please mind your own business. Damiens.rf is a disruptive troll who has got away with misbehaviour far too much on here and should not be allowed to be on Wikipedia. I'm more than entitled to tell him off. If you have a better solution you are welcome to share it. INTGAFW (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do tell people off. This is the second time you have made disparaging comments on my talk page telling me about my "tone" - you did so on the JRG talk page and you have done so again. The tone is because I am annoyed at another (troll) user and I am entitled to do so when they abuse the rules of Wikipedia for their own pleasure. Again, please mind your own business and stop interfering with others. INTGAFW (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epping to Chatswood Link - New 2009 timetable

Hi MrHarper! As the new 2009 timetable is to be released soon, expect some big changes to the Northern Line station boxes - when the ECRL will be integrated into the Northern Line. I think it will be quite messy as we have to determine which direction is considered outbound or inbound and where the cut off will be (when it reaches the CBD stations). A similar problem with the Western/North Shore Line last time (but this time it's actually the same line, so probably even more messy). --Pikablu0530 (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Line

In terms of the Hunter Line, the branches are the Scone and Dungog branches, not the technical names - the train names (which is what the Hunter Line is, a train service) use the destinations as the reference points. This is what we have had before. Please stop changing it. INTGAFW (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested a compromise which has both of the names for the Hunter Line (e.g. Main North/Scone to Maitland). I've also removed the italics which was not consistent with other lines. I hope this is a good compromise. Let's keep discussing rather than reverting each other's edits - I'm sorry for doing so to you. INTGAFW (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and my apologies again for the reversion. INTGAFW (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the new draft timetable has come out so there might be some information for us to add to particular line articles. INTGAFW (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks mate. I think Lonelygirl16 is an old friend of mine come back to haunt! Endarrt (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

cityrail boxes

the changes are unnecessary as they reflect the countrylink website and the neighbouring station boxes which have regions on them. i'm only fixing what is already there I'm not disputing the boxes. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City rail

Hello, with the new cityrail website, the link to station facilities now just goes to the homepage. It would take an age to update every station but i dont think it can be done because it requires a selection from the drop down box to select which station facilities you require. I cant get individual URLs for each station. Let me know if you can. Thanks 211.30.104.73 (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main Southern Line

It's the Main Southern Line and has always been known as that ([1]Need to pay to see it though, [2]Free, [3]Free, [4]Free). Bidgee (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not official? The news stories I've linked to are from National news sources (ABC, The Age ect) which is more reliable then a NSW Rail enthusiast's website! NSW Rail is totally incorrect and even some of it's content is wrong (Station, Line info ect). Bidgee (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't seem to be seeing how it works here. Newspapers are far more reliable (Sources are checked but the errors are small) then a enthusiast's site (Which is mostly info that hasn't been checked so the error rate is higher). Again another site using Main Southern Line and also this site. Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you expect me to waste my time looking for sources then you've picked the wrong person, It's clear you're trying bait but I've showed you that the name has been used for sometime and still is. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I see "I think its a bit Naïve to think that newspapers always get a railway line's name correct" and "Any idea what ARTc or RailCorp call it?" as baiting, As you see the links I gave you (one Government source and the other a contractor for the Government) which are reliable. Bidgee (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

xpt

your information is slightly wrong. the xpts do not all stop at eungai and grafton. you have deleted the boxes that show that. can you please put them back thanks. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that looks silly? what was wrong with the old way. It is inconsistent like the countrylink colours were before i changed them. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warragai Creek, New South Wales

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Warragai Creek, New South Wales, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.allescapes.com.au/c/InfoBrowser.browse/Warragai_Creek,_New_South_Wales. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]