Talk:Gippsland V/Line rail service

Australia: Victoria / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Gippsland V/Line rail service 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 articles
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 articles

Low

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

Untitled

This is a redirector to Gippsland Railway, another page I have classified for deletion. The page it redirects to is confusing and is not in the same format as all the other "[line name] railway line, [Melbourne/Victoria]" pages. I vote it should be deleted. Somebody in the WWW 23:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do H sets need to be referred to as operating on the line, as they are not usually scheduled and only run during shortages? Somebody in the WWW (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also another thing - a line table like the Bairnsdale line article has would be good :). I might work on that when it is not almost 3am. Somebody in the WWW (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger?

Would anybody oppose merging Traralgon railway line, Victoria with Bairnsdale railway line, Victoria, or both into the Orbost railway line, Victoria article? The one railway line doesn't need five articles (including the Pakenham and Dandenong triplification ones), and the Traralgon/Bairnsdale articles are just a basic list of stations which passenger services run to and some basic details. --Somebody in the WWW (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I tried to do that this happened! Working out how to slice and dice everything seems to take up more time than actually creating and expanding articles sometimes. You get into the 'they are all crap stubs so merge them into one' vs the 'there is enough to fill out an article just no-one has done it so leave them as they are' and then the middle ground 'merge them and split out later when they are big enough of their own articles'. I'll just sit back with popcorn for now. Wongm (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the individual articles seem to be developing very well, although Wongm bears a lot of the responsibility for getting that done. In this case, though, I've got no problem with redirecting this particular article (which is just a closer terminus for the Bairnsdale line).

I'm less keen on merging the Bairnsdale line into the Orbost line because it would be an anachronism: the line, today, is known as the Bairnsdale line, and talking about Bairnsdale services as part of the Orbost line would get a bemused reaction from an average person on the street, since there hasn't actually been a line there in a long time. I think it would be rather more logical to have the majority of the content that is current at the Orbost line article in the Bairnsdale line article, and have a shorter Orbost article detailing in a historical sense how the line used to go there (and the same for similar situations elsewhere in the state). It just doesn't make any sense to merge the Bairnsdale line (which is open) into an article on the Orbost line (which is closed) or at least it wouldn't make any sense to anyone without an interest in railway history. Rebecca (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Seymour railway line, Victoria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge. No objections against the merge were presented. No prejudice to a future discussion about moving the merged page. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been more than 10 years since this merger was last proposed. In the meantime, Ararat V/Line rail service has been successfully merged into [[Ballarat V/Line rail service, meaning that Bairnsdale and Warrnambool are the only two long-distance destinations with distinct articles from their "parent" line.

There is significant overlap between the two articles as it stands. In this particular case, there are regular services scheduled to terminate at the intermediate Sale, which is confusing in the current structure, and indicates that the decision to treat these as separate "services" is inappropriate original research.

In that spirit, what reliable sources we do have on this issue favour the "five line" approach. V/Line themselves describe patronage statistics in five lines only and incorporate long-distance services into their "parent" lines. See page 12. Similarly, the Victorian Auditor-General describes the network as being made up of five "corridors" with multiple destinations on each. See page 4.

In my view, merging these articles is a step towards adhering to the principle of least astonishment and making our articles on this topic as informative and navigable as possible. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Somebody in the WWW, Wongm, Rebecca as previous participants in the merge discussion. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the other lines have been merged, then no objections here to merge this one as well. Wongm (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what can gather the proposal is to merge Bairnsdale V/Line rail service into Traralgon V/Line rail service. Should it not be the the other way around, i.e. the shorter being merged into the longer? Portafing (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Portafing: Yes, I should perhaps have been clearer in this discussion section: I am proposing that the Bairnsdale article be merged into the Traralgon one. If you take a look at the sources I have provided, the convention is to refer to the "long-distance" services as branches/extensions of the "commuter" services, not the other way around. It should be clear why this is so when considering the Ballarat and Bendigo cases, each with two long-distance services branching from the commuter town. If there are reliable sources suggesting otherwise, please offer them here. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth noting that in the case of Geelong, Ballarat, and Bendigo, even these "line names" no longer the actual terminus of many commuter services – as they go beyond to Waurn Ponds, Wendouree, Eaglehawk and so on – lending weight to the argument that these major towns are conventional designations for the services rather than simply arbitrary. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Potential merge to Gippsland railway line

This isn't an official merge proposal but i believe that there isn't much of a reason for the services and line article to remain as seperate article. I suggest putting the main content in this article at the services section of the railway line article. If there is a conseus to potentially move i will start an official merge discussion NotOrrio (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are already discussions re "Gippsland V/Line rail service" and "Gippsland railway line"...

Possible splitting this into "Traralgon V/Line rail service" and "Bairnsdale V/Line rail service" (as there are separate Geelong V/Line rail service & Warrnambool V/Line rail service - this page is inconsistent to the other V/Line services)
Renaming Gippsland railway line to the correct name of "Orbost railway line" which will cover the full physical track from Southern Cross/Flinders Street to Orbost

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NotOrrio (and @ThylacineHunter) once I get round to rebuilding the article, I'll split them and significantly expand on them to provide notability. I'd support splitting and renaming. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 October 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Superseded by Talk:Albury V/Line rail service#Requested move 3 October 2024. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gippsland V/Line rail service → Gippsland line – Under WP:COMMONNAME, the name should be "Gippsland line" not "Gippsland V/Line rail service" ThylacineHunter (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This should have probably been done as a multi-move request as all of the following are under similar move requests: Albury V/Line rail service, Ballarat V/Line rail service, Bendigo V/Line rail service, Geelong V/Line rail service, Gippsland V/Line rail service, Seymour V/Line rail service, and Warrnambool V/Line rail service. Fork99 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albury V/Line rail service which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]