Talk:Warrnambool railway line

Australia: Victoria / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Warrnambool 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ballarat to Daylesford railway line, Victoria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. No prejudice against a merge with Warrnambool V/Line rail service. Jenks24 (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Port Fairy railway line → Warrnambool railway line – This has always struck me as being a very strange name for this article. There hasn't been track anywhere near Port Fairy, let alone to it, in ages. While this was the Port Fairy line once upon a time, it's been the Warrnambool line for decades - not only in terms of services but in terms of physical track. Calling it by a destination that is now linked to the railway line by twenty kilometres of grass is thoroughly confusing to anyone under the age of fifty without a knowledge of railway history. I think it's about time we addressed this properly as history, but called the line by its actual name. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC) The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This makes an awful lot of sense, and is supported by WP:COMMONNAME. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. This practice appears to be pretty widespread, and also occurs outside Victoria. I notice that the Orbost line, for example, appears in the navbox at the bottom under both Orbost (in "main lines") and Bairnsdale (in "V/Line services"). Perhaps a more centralised discussion would be a good idea? Frickeg (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a bit less fussed about cases like Bombala, where the line is essentially closed apart from a couple of tourist railway services, and I think it'd get a bit confusing if you didn't refer to the full historic line. The Orbost line is another good example - though even that closed much, much later than the Port Fairy section of this line. I'd have a centralised discussion but I'm not sure where it would go, so I thought I'd start with the strangest example, advertise it, and see where we go from there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment as this article makes no reference to being called Warrnambool railway line and the target for renmaning is a redirect to Warrnambool V/Line rail service what I'm reading is that it would be better to first consider a merge of the two articles as they appear to be the same. Though I suspect that the article naming was set up to address the very purpose of this request ie the lines actual/historical name and its current commercial usage Gnangarra 00:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. This is the Warrnambool line - in terms of track, not just in terms of freight or passenger services (commercial usage). If you want to go by train further than Warrnambool for any purpose at all, you're going to need a time machine until we've worked out how to make trains run on grass - which is why I'm arguing this article should be renamed. You're right about why this article was rewritten from its original Warrnambool to refer to the non-existent "Port Fairy line", but this has led to an absurd result. I don't really care whether Warrnambool V/Line rail service is merged into this or not, but I'd rather we didn't have an article on the physical line that - as I initially said - is incomprehensible to anyone under the age of fifty without a knowledge of railway history. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Port Fairy

Article was renamed in line with how other articles of similar nature are named. HoHo3143 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143 Is there any more information about this name choice? Do you know of any sources outside of Wikipedia that refer to the entire Melbourne to Dennington/Warrnambool rail track as the Port Fairy line? I can't see any recent ones and I worry that as it stands it may constitute OR. It should probably be changed to its common name. Gracchus250 (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest this should be changed back to "Warrnambool railway line" as per WP:COMMONNAME, even though it WILL then cause disambiguation issues with Warrnambool line. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just followed what @ThylacineHunter and I were discussing. I can change it back if you want- I don't mind. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]