User talk:The Fulch/Archive2

Hey, what's going on? I notice you blanked the talk page... I hope that you aren't leaving, as I've noticed your work and I think that you are a most valuable contributor! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness! I was getting worried there... keep up the good work Fulch. (hope you don't mind calling you that!) - Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CityRail Template

Honestly I do agree with you that having three large infoboxes is a bit disproportional, particularly for stub articles with little content. However that's the way it is done for CityRail station articles at the moment. I have consulted another user regarding the uses of these templates on the station pages (for example, Template:CityRailSydney) and whether it is necessary. I was advised to keep this template because it "enable users to browse any other line (and station) other than those on which a particular station is situated" and that "it serves a purpose".

I have only been to the Melbourne and Brisbane rail station pages. Personally I found the CityRail pages a bit easier to navigate around than the Melbourne ones, but the Melbourne station pages's infoboxes (like Flinders Street Station) are much neater and organised. The Brisbane station pages (like Eagle Junction railway station, Brisbane) has a very good balance between ease of navigation and the amount of spaces the infoboxes take. But that's just my own opinion.

If we take the Brisbane station pages as a sample, perhaps a redesign of the bottom navbox to make it more compact (as it can be seen - there's too much white spaces in CityRail ones when comparing to the Brisbane ones), or the ability to collapse the navbox would be good. Additionally perhaps the inbound/outbound neighbouring stations template could be integrated with the Station Infobox. However this might be too much to ask for users reluctant to change and satisfied with the way it is already. --Pikablu0530 14:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corowa branch

More than happy for a rename Regards --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Power stations

I think there are more old power stations that you can add to your list. Tallawarra Power Station which was on Lake Illawarra is one you can add - I think it is being rebuilt as a gas-powered plant. JRG 23:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airport and East Hills railway line, Sydney

Thanks for your message. I do think that the encyclopaedia should treat the lines as separate in line with their separate histories and designs - the way in which CityRail groups them today is of secondary importance. TransitPolice 01:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your views on the matter would be welcome on the talk page, where it is now being discussed, albeit somewhat heatedly. Go figure. TransitPolice 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Fulch 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Airport Line page is a Joestella POV fork as it stands, and given there is complete duplication with other articles, there does not need at present to be a separate article. I am well within my rights to do this - you do not need a merge proposal every time. If you want to expand the history section (and there really isn't that much information on it compared to the East Hills line) then by all means expand the main article and create a spinoff article when there is enough information for a separate article, as is the legitimate process for creating fork articles. Leaving the dodgy article that is there at the moment is not an acceptable outcome. JRG 06:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have the time or energy to worry about this anymore. The Fulch 12:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish - stop worrying about it. Your edits are worthwhile and needed. Your East Hills article is excellent. Keep going and stop giving up every time people don't agree with you. JRG 03:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]