Jump to content

User talk:Fleet Lists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simple Lang Ako (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 15 October 2018 (→Read This Please: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Fleet Lists! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 07:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Fleet Lists, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Fleet Lists! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Trains templates


See here and here for a full list of CityRail templates; the corresponding Sydney Trains templates are here and [1]. I'm no expert on those templates and would even have to do some research to find out the difference between the "right" and "left" templates (possibly an issue of direction?); Template talk:S-line may be a good place to ask for additional help.
On an unrelated note, the templates for the Bankstown line seem to disagree on the destination: "towards Circular Quay" vs. "towards City Circle" - is that deliberate, possibly because the rail line was extended under Sydney Trains? If not, that should be fixed.
On second thought, moving-and-redirecting might have been a wiser decision than duplicating that template. I'll think about that. Huon (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In an old page for Strathfield railway station the article contained a photo gallery with some photos under the heading Gallery. In a subsequent edit this was removed and replaced by the link * Media related to Strathfield railway station at Wikimedia Commons under that heading to explain where the gallery photos could now be found. In other station articles such as Rydalmere the gallery was purely replaced by the link under External links as recommended in Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#Where_to_place_links However it has been found that users have been critical of this as it does not explain where the gallery photos can now be found, hence the adoption of the Strathfield approach. But another editor has reversed that change on two occasions as it is considered against Wiki policy. This have been discussed with him on his talk page and I agree with him and as such this is not a dispute. See User_talk:Rb119. The alternate use of {{commons category|Strathfield railway station, Sydney}} as displayed here, which was in use in the older Strathfield version does not seem much better. The question I have is: How can we better explain that this link now replaces the Gallery without breaking the Wiki rules or is it acceptable to use the link under a heading such as gallery? I had already made such a change in over 50 other station articles which may now all need to be reversed.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Strathfield railway station, Sydney.

Fleet Lists (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Doubtful posts

Hi there. I've reviewed their overnight posts and the link they've provided. Whilst I don't know the user's background, it does seem overly opinionated, not helped by the link being an online petition. Because of that, I'd say at the very least that it fails WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV. A solution could be to perhaps re-write this in a more neutral tone - petition's aren't what I'd consider 'reputable neutral sources'.

If you choose to re-write it, perhaps this article can be used to make it sound more neutral Hope this helps. Nath1991 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that article link - this is already covered in Airport, Inner West & South Line in a more neutral fashion and a more appropriate place. Hence I will delete it from the various stations with reference to Airport, Inner West & South LineFleet Lists (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Opal card, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Newcastle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Circular Quay ferry wharf

Hello, Fleet Lists. You have new messages at Vesna Wylde's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Milsons Point railway station may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }</ref>}}<ref>{{Cite New South Wales transport timetables|Central Coast & Newcastle}}</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations#Transport Links I raised an issue concerning the inclusion of Transport Link information in the articles on train stations in Sydney Australia. Editor charlesdrakew has recently removed such information from Lindfield railway station and Macarthur railway station on the grounds that they broke the No Travel Guide rules.

There are many more stations such as Wahroonga railway station which contain similar information on which no action has been taken.

After reading the No Travel Guide paragaraph

“Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.”

I can not see where that rule is broken with the information supplied except possibly the reference to a timetable.

However in November last year the editor concerned deleted similar information from Liverpool railway station which at the time did not contain such references, so that can not be the only problem as far as he is concerned. After I tried to add it back then, he threatened to have me banned if I tried to add it again.

I have tried to ask him in the article referred to as to what he would like to see, but I have not received any reply.

I have also looked at some overseas stations such as Amsterdam Centraal railway station and Den Haag Centraal railway station where considerable bus information is present and which seems to be acceptable.

The comments from Gareth who has been the only person to comment, at least supports that some bus interchange information should be present.

For the sake of consistency in all trains station articles, I would like to know where I go from here. I would be happy to delete the timetable references if this is considered a problem and replace them with a reference to the website of the operator concerned.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last night the Transport Links section for Circular Quay railway station was deleted. As this did not have timetable references, this can not be the only consideration. This also left a problem in that some wikilinks refer direct to the deleted section, so I will need to sort that out.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing this to a regular {{help}} request because it appears the request does not require someone with the administrator tool set -- merely advise about an editorial dispute. Have you tried asking your question at WT:RR? Mkdwtalk 01:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I Have Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Transport_Links but no response.Fleet Lists (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your RFC. Right now you're in an editorial dispute involving another editor. The conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations#Transport Links is very difficult to follow for any outside reader. Even reading the entire discussion, it's not clear what you want or how you want the community involved. Do you want someone to step into the middle of your argument with the other editor? Even so, that's not really how RFC is set up if you've read the page about it, so it's not surprising you're having trouble attracting attention. Even your help request is long, draws attention to things I don't see as relevant and again it's difficult to exactly ascertain what you're asking. I think you're treating this like a court case to which it's not. Including things like the history of the dispute you're having with this other editor, the sequence of events, whether you received a reply, the one lone supporter you have, etc. isn't of much relevance to someone reading the conversation unless they're here to moderate it. An RFC is not a community moderation panel.
You can attempt to seek a third opinion once your conversation has been exhausted with the other editor. It is more set up as a judicial process in which you'll state your case, the other party will state theirs, and they'll offer you their opinion. Again, they won't come into the middle of your conversation and for you to expect them to read the entire previous discussion and follow along. You'll have to restart your argument with them in a summarized statement. If that fails, I suggest you write a clear and concise, emphasis on concise, question you wish to ask the members of the WikiProjects. Ask it in one place and direct their attention to it. IF that fails to draw attention, then turn it into WP:RFC but you need to read the entire page first. An RFC is not a request for comment on a drawn out conversation you're already having. Specifically look at the example section. It's a short and clean statement which the community will either support or oppose your proposal. Look at the other on-going RFC's to see how they're run. Mkdwtalk 03:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

I suggest you read WP:ARCHIVE / WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE before you wholesale delete conversations from talk pages. Even if they're outdated. Mkdwtalk 04:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cite to trove

your update to Goulburn was effective enough but rather short on detail that could have been provided while you were there copying the url. trove provides you with a cite button giving you complete wiki cites Dave Rave (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good job, I'm in the middle of fixing that, but job done. I'm looking at the austli link, of course i can't figure out why it's wrong, but i figured where it is. I'll add the pdf in Dave Rave (talk)
Dave Rave Thanks you for the update - I live and learn even as a nearly 78 year old. I have also done a similar update to Crookwell railway line. Fleet Lists (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
78?! good job, thanx for listening. wiki cites are so convoluted Dave Rave (talk)
did a google search on austlii and num_act, an act is a Numbered Act
of course we all know that and it's (not) in the Cite documentation
so, if you catch a dead link again, try num_act (rolling eyes) Dave Rave (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RailCorp's role

Hi, I see you're referencing RailCorp's asset-holding role in relation to NWRL. Although RailCorp continues to exist as the formal owner of the existing rail network, this does not necessarily mean new and additional assets will be transferred to RailCorp ownership – and I haven't seen anything public to suggest they will be. Do you have any references to support this? Mqst north (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also nothing to say that RailCorp will NOT be the owner, as they are the legal entity which manages such investments. If anything a reference would be required if they are not to be the owner.Fleet Lists (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. That's not how it works. I have challenged your contention that RailCorp will own the NWRL. You need to provide a citation to restore it, not demand I prove a negative. Conversely, if you want to challenge the contention that TfNSW will be the owner, you can remove it or add a citation-needed tag.
While it's possible RailCorp will evolve into a general transport asset holding company, that hasn't happened yet, or (to my knowledge) been announced. It's also unlikely to proceed under RailCorp's current name. (In any case, TfNSW is the parent agency to RailCorp, so I don't see what the issue is.) Mqst north (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to get consistency with other stations - but for the moment I will let the issue rest. Please also revert any others you have not done so far.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

To prevent this going any further I am not sure where to go next with this. A recent new member has been deleting information from a number of New South Wales railway stations on the basis that it is not correctly referenced. The deleted information generally consists of Platform Boxes for which normally no references are required. However he thinks differently. Some stations concerned are Oak Flats railway station, Gerringong railway station, Berry railway station and Bomaderry railway station. Discussion on this was started by another editor on the user's talk page User_talk:Mqst_north#A bit of free advice and has continued there. I have restored the deleted information but I suspect that he will again the delete the information and I do not want to get into an edit war on this. This is not the first difference I have had with this new member.Fleet Lists Above item is just one. (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC) He has since again deleted some parts but leaving others. My understanding is that while there is a dispute, the status quo should remain and the data not deleted.Fleet Lists (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking at cross-purposes some of the time. I've added sections to the talk pages of Gerringong railway station, Berry railway station and Bomaderry railway station so we can discuss further outside of edit summaries – and hopefully agree on a way forward for each. Mqst north (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are getting somewhere - I have already replied to each of them. In fact for the bus operators my suggestion to adopt what is in Liverpool railway_station#Transport links is very similar to what you have since done in Bomaderry although I prefer to keep the standard heading "Transport Links" which I believe is more meaningful. Also there is a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations which is well out of date - I did one update earlier this year but should be updated to confirm what we ultimately agree on so that this sort of thing will not come up again. It is interesting to see that this page does not mention the blue bus symbol but just mentions "bus", "train", etc.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that subheading being restored. As for the blue B logo, that makes sense in official contexts, but here it has no meaning. Since it's English Wikipedia, there's no need for a symbol when the word 'bus' is widely understood. Mqst north (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WestConnex

I notice you made a change to the WestConnex article in order to revert an edit of mine. (I also notice that one of your previous edit to this page included putting a link to an online anti-WestConnex petition – which I would regard as a pretty blatant violation of NPOV.) I realise you and I have our differences on railway station pages, which I'm doing my best to engage with constructively, but going through my contribution list and needlessly reverting changes elsewhere on Wikipedia is not the way to move forward. Mqst north (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC): As far as thee previous post in WestConnex is concerned it is purely reporting a fact and not specifically pushing an opinion one way or another. As far as the reversion is concerned I believe there is nothing to stop that infobox being used on a multiple road exercise such as this and in fact is most helpful in showing a quick summary of what the article is about without having to read through the whole article and that is what the infobox is for. And as far as not moving forward how do you think I have felt over the last couple of days, continually wasting time reverting or changing posts?Fleet Lists (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WestConnex is really five distinct road projects; "WestConnex" is a politically-conferred monicker, best understood as a scheme or program of works. So to put an infobox on it that focuses on operational data like exits and interchanges is inappropriate – the place for that is the separate M4 and M5 pages. Mqst north (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted time

user:Grahamec It appears that I have been wasting my time maintaining the information on Sydney and New South Wales train stations over the past year or so after most other editors in this area have either retired or are no longer active for other reasons. Recent upstart member User_talk:Mqst_north who seems to believe that consensus means his own opinion, is continually destroying long established information, doing away with templates which are used worldwide and replacing them with very minimal information - with stations like Kiama railway station now not even showing what train services use the station. The historic information he has added is great but it should not be at the expense of service information. This is being discussed at Talk:Bomaderry railway station#Platform allocations and also at User_talk:Mqst north#A bit of free advice where so far no consensus has been reached but this has not stopped him continuing his destructive posts at other stations like Kiama. It is a pity that the great work done by previous contributors to these stations, is now being destroyed by someone who is obviously only interested in what he wants and has no respect for what others think. He has even gone to the extreme of accusing me and another contributor who opposed him, to be sockpuppets. This is not the only occasion on which he has accused opponents, who did not involve me, of being sockpuppets. Hence I think it is time I went on to do other things which hopefully will not be destroyed in this manner.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Page Blanking in NSW transport articles

I don't know anyone who regularly edits these articles but it seems User:Mqst_north has been going through the articles in this area and blank -> redirecting large articles. Particularly after NPP deleted a bunch of weird template things he made in article space.--Savonneux (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SavonneuxThank you for contacting me. I have just about given up in disgust. This user has hit us like a cyclone and has made numerous changes against consensus. See four paragraphs above this one and also Bomaderry railway station and the talk page, where he has deleted the standard platform boxes and service direction platforms which he claims are not acceptable as they they are not referenced yet they are used worldwide in stations. He has done this in all station listed on his home page under South Coast Line. Also see User talk:Mqst north#A bit of free advice. I prepared an Admin report on him which no one acted on and has been archived. He also reported me and another user who disagreed with him as Sock Puppets. I suspect that this time he is trying to delete soo me date and replace it with Templates. Also he got an admin to rename two Sydney stations which was done but this was immediately protested against by Scottish user s and hence the rename was reverted, but this user is still trying to get it done. He just does not want to listed to anyone else. As a result of this I have just about given up trying to keep some sense in these articles. Unfortunately all past editors who have worked on these pages have retired or moved on. I could go on with things he has done but I think this is enough.Fleet Lists (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fleet Lists. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Card page changes

As one of the primary editors of the Opal Card page, wanted your opinion on this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opal_card#/talk/1 Moa999 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fleet Lists. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NightRide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Shore Line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macquarie University railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State Transport Authority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Blacktown railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Schofields
Schofields railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Schofields

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about sandbox

I have seen the thank you note you left on my talk page, and thank you for starting the on demand section yesterday. I have expanded the list of on demand services, similar to the one on Transport Info website.

As for your draft prose on your sandbox, I think it is good, but I think a simpler table should remain to summarise the current contracts and operator, while the history will be explained in the prose. Prior history for each region (particularly around 2004) can also be explained, as many bus operators (eg. Baxter's Bus Lines Region 13, Harris Park Transport Regions 4 and 7) gave up and sold their businesses to the larger operators, possibly as a result of the implementation of contract regions. Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a redirect

I have now been on wiki for nearly four years and during that time have made over 6000 edits - mainly cleaning up Transport items in New South Wales Australia.

I was under the impression that to delete a redirect to allow a new page to replace it I had to request that to be done by an administrator. However I noticed that an editor en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kerinlong who only joined on 20 August 2018 appears to have deleted a redirect himself - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete at 14.31 (Sydney time Australia) today.

14:31, 21 August 2018 Kerinlong (talk | contribs) deleted redirect Mernda railway line by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move) (thank)

If he can do that, how can I do that if I need to do that in future. When I have needed to do it, I have done a rename to a similar name so that I avoided the issue.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed users can move a page onto certain redirects; it happens automatically as part of the move and is not a separate delete action. Moving over redirect explains that the redirect must have only one entry in its edit history and must be a redirect to the page being moved onto it. This particular adaptation allows undoing of moves, which normally leave behind a single-edit redirect, without having to get administrators involved. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:GPFC01

Hi there! Just a note, we don't delete people's userpages just because they're inactive. ansh666 08:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chatswood Station

Back on 15 February a change was made to Chatswood railway station Chatswood_railway_station&diff=prev&oldid=825774283 from

Template:NSW TrainLink intercity lines

(peak hour services)

to

Template:NSW TrainLink intercity lines

(peak hour services)

{{s-line|system=NSW TrainLink intercity|line=Central Coast & Newcastle|previous=St Leonards|next=Gordon|notemid=''(peak hour services)''}} to {{s-line|system=NSW TrainLink intercity|line=Central Coast & Newcastle|previous=Artarmon|next=Lindfield|notemid=''(peak hour services)''}} The change from Gordon to Lindfield has worked fine but not the change from St Leonards to Artarmon which also does not display above. This was missed by the editor 122.106.246.104 Nothing is now displayed for trips towards Central. I only picked this up last night when I was cleaning up some edits made by the same editor a bit earlier. I have tried various things but can not to get it to work.Fleet Lists (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It took a bit of looking to figure this one out. As best I can tell, what you saw was because Artarmon was not in the list at {{NSW TrainLink intercity stations}}. So I added it and I think that has fixed the immediate problem you pointed out.
For some reason, the scheme used by this template was different from the scheme used by {{Sydney Trains stations}}, which uses a default construct to find stations whose article names (or redirects) follow the naming convention even if they are not in the list. I didn't attempt to do any further reconciliation. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I did post a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Use of default in station lists, which you are welcome to comment on. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I made that mistake in writing the post here, too, but managed to catch it before the final post. Maybe I should ask that the {{tl}} template ignore any leading "Template:". — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle

Ah, no worries! Thanks for the heads up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read This Please

Why You Removed the Image on Page Pope Anastasius I Simple Lang Ako (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fleet_Lists&oldid=864233301"