Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand Railways

WP:COUNCIL

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Descendant of WikiProject Trains?

Is this project a descendant or WikiProject Trains? It makes sense to work with them. It should be noted somewhere, as all the NZR articles also fall under WikiProject Trains. --Lee Begg 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Contact Slambo at WP:TWP, to add WikiProject NZR as a WikiProject Trains Descendant Wikiprojects. that way when you tag talk pages with the TWP banner ({{TrainsWikiProject}}you can add "NZ=yes" or something). Pickle 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider me contacted (this page is currently on my watch list). You don't need my permission to add this as a descendant project to TWP if you want; just add it to the TWP project page as linked above. Work up an icon and I'll add it to {{TrainsWikiProject}}, and I can add NZR-specific importance flags as well like we've already got for others (like NYPT or WPLT; WPTIS is in the process of adding the categories now too). Slambo (Speak) 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A little New Zealand flag (see "Image:Flag of New Zealand.svg") (like the scottish sub project) suit me best, but "Image:JA1271 Opapa 16Feb2003 JChristianson.jpg" is on the current banner (dosen't scream New Zealand to me at 50px.... Slambo could you do "NZ-importance=" bit as well. Pickle 01:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the British blue ensign doesn't scream NZ at me either... --Lholden 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Had I been aware of the ability to add "NZ-importance=" to {{TrainsWikiProject}} at the time I made {{WikiProject NZR}}, I probably would have simply requested it added rather than making a whole new template. That said, I feel there are some advantages to an individualised template now, so I wouldn't advocate its removal. And I feel the picture on the banner with the traditional red carriages and a J^A class locomotive absolutely screams New Zealand; it's one of the first things I think of when I think NZR. If we need a small logo for the TWP template, I don't think the current New Zealand flag is appropriate (I don't identify with it and I suspect Lewis doesn't either), but I would support the use of a silver fern. - Axver 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I said the NZ flag as to those of us not in NZ it gives a clue, obviously there are "issues" about it (don't go there we've had so much fun with the UK's own internal constitutional arrangements). I think the silver fern is OK as most of us up here get that (i hope they do anyway!). As for the {{TrainsWikiProject}}, the ability to have multiple "Descendants" within is really useful, for example East Croydon station, which is in a few! More generally IMHO the {{TrainsWikiProject}} allows the tagging user to explicit the functionality of the template and add many bits of info, such as map or image needed, the various task forces, unref, etc - which i feel is useful for the casual editor seeking the help as opposed to the "basic" project banner. Pickle 02:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - Would it be hard to do? Or do we simply put a request in that it be added? --Lholden 22:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not overwhelmingly difficult. I'm already working on a similar update to the template for UK rails, and adding the params for NZR at the same time would help to minimize the server load once the changes go live. Slambo (Speak) 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've got the basic class and importance settings for NZR params to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} working in my test space now. The proposed params are:

• NZR=yes indicates that the article is within NZR's scope
• NZR-importance=[low|mid|high|top] indicates the importance within NZR independent of TWP.

Both the NZR-importance and the preexisting class parameters will sort articles into the appropriate NZR quality (stub/start/B/GA/A/FA) and importance categories, which I have yet to set up. Now, a couple further questions... First, do you also want to track articles that are marked with a non-quality class (template/category/image/disambig/redirect)? Right now, the test template will not sort into NZR-specific categories for these non-quality classes, but it's very easy to add. Second, what format should we follow for the category names? For testing, I put the quality category names as Foo-Class NZR articles and the importance category names as Foo-Importance NZR articles, but it seems to me that we should expand the acronym for the category names so they are more explanatory when the bot runs and accumulates the statistics for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index and associated pages. Slambo (Speak) 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its nice to have that useibility of "template/category/image/disambig/redirect" et al. Pickle 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but what you've done looks good. --Lholden 23:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The updates are now live. Use NZR=yes to indicate the article is within the scope of this project and NZR-importance=yes to indicate the article's importance within this project. These parameters will sort articles into the appropriate subcategories of Category:WikiProject New Zealand Railways articles. Slambo 42 19:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (using my unprivileged account because I'm on a public wireless access point right now)

THanks for your work (been away for a few days ;) ), i'll get on working through them. Pickle 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Station infobox

Currently we're using a manual table, why haven't we been using one of the template out there, the main one bing {{tl:Infobox Station}}, but local customisation exists, eg {{tl:Infobox UK station}} and {{tl:Infobox London station}}. Similarly are there station usage statistics to quote ??? Pickle 14:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind adding an Infobox to station articles I've written, but are you suggesting that before that is done that a NZ-customised template should be created for such articles?

The only usage statistics for stations in the Wellington region that I am aware of are Trip and passenger numbers and Interesting facts. It may be possible to obtain more detailed information directly from Greater Wellington Regional Council. -- Matthew25187 00:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be useful also as a number of statements made about patronage of various stations should be verified. --Lholden 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added an Infobox Station table to the Greytown Railway Station article to see what it looks like. If there is to be NZ customisations of this template, should that include templates for both open and disused stations, and regional variations, i.e. separate Auckland and Wellington templates? -- Matthew25187 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Greytown Railway Station is a good example of using the generic one (which may be too US centric). The Auckland area has one built out of a table that doesn't tell anybody much. What I'm getting at is should we build a NZ specific one capable of use by the 3 passenger train operators (ie use/access different statistics, timetables, etc), the closed stations, and the heritage railway operators *OR* build specific ones for each passenger train operators and just use the generic one for closed/heritage lines? Also i feel that some of the fields in the generic {{tl:Infobox Station}}, may not be really useful in a new Zealand context and/or we need to standardise the "answers" so they are useful. Pickle 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the generic Infobox Station template could be improved upon for the New Zealand context, but I have concerns about station templates specific to particular operators (or services for that matter). How could such templates adequately handle the situation of a station being serviced by multiple operators, e.g. Takapu Road to Palmerston North in Wellington (MetLink/Tranz Metro, Tranz Scenic) or Britomart to Pukekohe in Auckland (Veolia, Tranz Scenic)? Would not regional-themed templates be less ambiguous? -- Matthew25187 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a play with a NZ wide one to start with. As to multiple operators at one station, I'll have to did up what the Americans do. I know they've managed to integrate tube and network rail ones over here (UK). Pickle 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK done some digging, and at a guess these features look useful and usable (using Wellington railway station as an example ;

name = Wellington image = [[Image:WellingtonRailwayStation 14May2003 JChristianson.jpg]] image_size = 300px caption = Wellington railway station at night manager = ? owner = [[ONTRACK]] ? locale = [[Wellington]] borough = [[Wellington Region]] platforms = 7 ? years = 1937 events = Opened coordinates = {{coor title dms|41|16|43|S|174|46|51|E|region:NZ-WGN_type:landmark}} exits = 20,000 passengers

importantly the "exits" option appears to be an old option from the UK pre use of government annual statics for ever station (which we appear to lack here, also all other option trigger a lot of complex code!)

the "borough" tag should be renamed but I'm not sure what you chaps call your boroughs/counties/whatever

the "owner" / "manager" bit is interesting - over here the main passenger service operator at a station "manages" the station (rented from track owner), while the track owner runs the major terminals. services from other passenger operators use other passenger operator owned stations (does that make any sense?!)

thought on these ? Pickle 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC) the "events" bit ("years" and "events") can be expanded for numerous events (ie opened, closed, reopened, etc). Its more useful than "start" in some cases but perhaps more complex.

There is no national consistency in NZ for statistics on railway station patronage (that I am aware of). If such statistics are collected, it is likely to be done by the relevant local government entity, using whatever methodology they have chosen. Ticket sales are not a useful measure of patronage, as few stations are staffed these days, and even of those that are staffed, I can't be sure that they all offer ticket sales.

Boroughs are not a concept we have in NZ these days (having been abolished in 1989), and provinces were abolished in the 19th century. Perhaps a suitable label would be Local Government Jurisdiction?

Railway station ownership in NZ is a mixture of railway operators, local government and central government. Since the creation of ONTRACK, ownership of the track is not tied to ownership of the stations.

I'd have also thought the following tags from the Infobox Station template would still be useful in the NZ context: services, line, electrified, zone, former. The line tag would make more sense if it referred to railway lines and branches served by a station rather than services or "brand names" invented by operators. -- Matthew25187 04:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK i can see "lines" as in one of the 3 in Auckland, 5/6 in Wellington, but I'm not sure how having several lines at one station would affect it and how long distance operators (ie the Overlander) would affect it. The "services" option would affect this one too.

I'm not sure if electrification is really relevant but we can have it (at a guess only for the Wairarapa Line stations is it useful as these are out of the local context - also some place see diesel and electric service). also an agree format would be needed - ie is it yes/no, or a years field, will it give 1500 V DC overhead, or 25kV AC overhead, etc.

"Zones" - do you have zones? (i presume like London does with 1-6, and A-D with some station on zone border qualify for both).

As for the local government is this Regions of New Zealand the right answer for describing locations ? Or Is this right Administrative divisions of New Zealand and i might need to list additional (or just on its own) the second tier (Territorial authorities of New Zealand) ???

Pickle 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One of my concerns with Station Infoboxes for multiple operators or services is that if you start including relevant logos for the operators/services or other such images, the Infobox could, for some stations, become quite large with the Infobox then competing with the main article body in terms of space occupied. Perhaps you had something different in mind? Also, with operator specific templates, wouldn't you end up creating and maintaining quite a few combinations to cover all cases, e.g. a Tranz Metro template wouldn't be enough, because you'd also need a Tranz Metro/Tranz Scenic template, likewise, Veolia and Veolia/Tranz Scenic templates, etc.

If information on electrification is to be included at a station level, it'd make more sense to list the year that electrification reached the station than a simple yes/no. For example, though most of the Wellington regional rail network is electrified, the central government has recently announced an investment programme for rail transport in Wellington including an extension of electrification from Mackays Crossing to Waikanae.

Fare zones for train travel are used in both Wellington and Auckland. I have seen fare zone maps somewhere, but can't seem to remember where.

Services and lines definitely belong to regional authorities, but stations could be associated with either regional authorities (in the case of Wellington, the GWRC owns a couple of stations) or territorial authorities (responsible for funding and arranging for improvements to stations and ancillary facilities). In Auckland, ARTNL is responsible for maintaining and upgrading railway stations and is also the lease-holder on them. -- Matthew25187 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers that makes more sense now. I hope not to make the box to long, and the the diffrent trian operators shouldn't make the box to long. Use of logos is ify as it normally dosne't meet the "fair use" cireteria (as the images are copyright). Pickle 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have received a set of station patronage statistics for the Wellington suburban rail network compiled from surveys undertaken in late 2006. Not sure how useful the numbers will be though, as they only cover morning peak time suburban services over two days. -- Matthew25187 20:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried adding some patronage info to the existing Infobox in the Upper Hutt Railway Station article, but I kept getting an "Expression error: Unexpected > operator" error every time I specified a number for the passengers parameter. Not sure what the problem is. -- Matthew25187 07:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

NZR importance clarification

I've just been browsing the Category:New Zealand Railways articles by importance category, and I'm a bit puzzled by inconsistency of the importance. For example: Main South Line is High, but Main North Line is Mid (Main North Line carries passengers, Main South doesn't). Another example: Britomart Transport Centre (top), Wellington railway station (high). Do we need to clarify the importance classification, or should I just change them as I see fit? --Lee Begg 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please change them as you see fit. The idea is it allows article to be classed in their importance of New Zealand railways as a whole rather than in worldwide perspective. i did a huge mass of them at once and wasn't particularly consistent in the rankings of importance, so a better / expert / just anther pair of eyes view on this would be greatly appreciated. As far as i can gather, article like "rail transport in new Zealand" is undoubtedly top, and should be this project first job on advancing to GA or even FA status, followed by "high" rating for stuff like the NIMT, the Midland Line, etc. Pickle 02:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed this discussion last time around, sorry. I'd just like to respond to one point regarding the Main South and North Lines. I've been tempted to put the MNL on an equal footing with the MSL, but I've held off because historically, the MSL has been one of New Zealand's most important lines (in fact, it was the first complete trunk route), while the MNL took over 70 years to finish, during which there were multiple suggestions that it should be abandoned. Its importance really only was firmly established when the RORO Interislander ferries were established in the sixties, and if they vanished, I wonder just how long the MNL would last. I would definitely expect its closure northwards beyond Blenheim.

That said, maybe we should try to make importance more clear - simply, every main line is of high importance, including the MNL; every secondary main line is of mid importance (except the Midland Line and perhaps the Stillwater - Westport Line, which is essentially a continuation of the Midland Line); and with few exceptions, branch lines are low importance. Locomotives are a bit more difficult. Classes like the F, Q, 1906 A, Ab, DA, and DX are clearly very important. Others, however, are a bit more difficult ... the N class, for instance, is low importance until you factor in WMR No. 10's position in history. - Axver 01:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'ld agree with that Pickle 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ARTA07

I'm a little wary of this users recent edits, one might suspect this is a member of the organisation editing their own articles. Could one of you Kiwis have a look as i fear either a polical motive or just a plain conflict of intrest. Pickle 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Article naming

Several articles I wrote use a naming convention that is inconsistent with the Manual of style. I propose to move (rename) these articles to be consistent with this standard. This would affect the following articles:

• Appleby Railway Station (New Zealand) → Appleby Railway Station, New Zealand
• Hope Railway Station (New Zealand) → Hope Railway Station, New Zealand
• Richmond Railway Station (New Zealand) → Richmond Railway Station, New Zealand
• Woodside Railway Station (New Zealand) → Woodside Railway Station, New Zealand

If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make the change. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits

I would just like to draw the attention of the WP:NZR membership to the edits of 210.54.6.37. This particular anonymous editor has been editing NZR articles from that IP for a decent period of time, and they are beginning to concern me. Not all of this user's edits are cause for concern - they often clarify phrasing and occasionally add information. However, they sometimes simplify or rephrase articles in a manner that reduces clarity and, in some cases, removes information altogether. This editor appears to have an attitude that shorter phrasing is always preferable; I would thoroughly disagree with this view and in some cases have restored phrasing to lengthier forms that I believe flow better and convey information to the reader with greater depth and clarity. I am primarily concerned with those edits that, for the sake of shorter phrasing, cut information - one example I am yet to find the time to fix is Ngapara and Tokarahi Branches (a full revert does not seem wise as some changes do improve phrasing).

I would discuss this with the user in question, but I note other editors have communicated on User talk:210.54.6.37 and received no response. Accordingly, I figured the best route would be to make you lot aware so that any detrimental edits are quickly copyedited or reverted. - Axver (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first time we've had this problem with this particular anon editor. I remember when the passenger train articles were being written, there was something of a low-level edit war over the way the articles were written - of course we were keeping to the WP guidelines, which I think is what you're getting at Axver. --Lholden (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that issue was related to a different anon editor? If I'm thinking of the same incident as you, an editor was adding huge masses of detailed but poorly written and incorrectly formatted text and paid little attention to any communication attempts. Judging by the writing style, I'd be fairly confident that this is a different individual entirely. Speaking of those passenger train articles, though, some are still in need of clean-up. And I really need to get around to writing articles for a couple more services that I know existed. - Axver (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right - just checked the IP addresses, they are different. Either way there's been no response. --Lholden (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

{{NZR member}} at TFD

Another editor has nominated {{NZR member}} for deletion. Please join the discussion there. Slambo (Speak) 10:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is currently one Delete vote and three comments. The nomination has been relisted to find consensus; please join the discussion and make your delete or keep preferences known. Slambo (Speak) 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Article names for Lines in "place hyphen place" format

I notice that in article names for lines of the form "<oneplace> <anotherplace> Line", the two places are separated by a <space> hyphen <space>, eg, Stillwater - Westport Line. I believe that Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes indicates the two places should be separated by an en dash with no spaces, eg, Stillwater–Westport Line, with a redirect from the hyphen form without spaces, eg, Stillwater-Westport Line (in addition to any other redirects). The exceptions to this are when one or both of the place names contains a space — in these cases a space is used on each side of the en dash, eg, Marton – New Plymouth Line. Any opposition to such changes? Nurg (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, as someone who is vision impaired, I cannot see any difference whatsoever between the hyphen and en dash and do not see why a change is necessary. I'm normally a bit of a stickler for correct grammar, but this strikes me as the height of inconsequential, petty grammatical quibbling. On grounds of sheer practicality, I would note that nobody is actually going to be typing the en dash in the search box; they are going to use the standard hyphen. There's no point turning the most commonly used search into a redirect over a matter this insignificant.

At the end of the day, though, I suppose I'm not about to win an argument alone against the Manual of Style. I think it's rather silly to not have spaces either side of the en dash when the place names don't contain a space, e.g. Stillwater and Westport, but to have spaces when at least one place name does, e.g. Marton and New Plymouth. I would argue for some consistency, specifically that the en dash always have spacing either side, i.e. for Stillwater – Westport Line as well as Marton – New Plymouth Line. Ultimately, though, if change is inevitable, this isn't something I will try to oppose or argue against. I don't think it's worth the fuss. - Axver (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of New Zealand railway terminology references

Hi folks,

I just thought I would make everybody involved in the project aware of a recent decision and request some assistance. To bring the Glossary of New Zealand railway terminology (formerly the List of NZ railfan jargon) into line with the UK and US glossaries, references to reliable sources will be required for every entry in the glossary. All entries that are unreferenced by the end of June will be moved to a holding page. When references are found for these entries, a holding page will make it easier to simply copy and paste them back into the article, rather than hunting through the page history or rewriting the entry.

I am going to scour all of my own sources for references, but I will require help. A lot of my sources were published in the 1990s. Accordingly, I lack references for much of the 2000s jargon, e.g. "corn cob" for the yellow and aquamarine Toll Rail livery. I'm sure references to this can be found in one of the New Zealand railway magazines on the market, but I haven't yet found them in an Australian library that is easily accessible for me. If any of you do have access to recent sources (if you live in New Zealand, chances are your library might have them, especially bigger urban libraries), I would much appreciate it if you could lend a hand and improve the glossary. New terminology entries are also of course very welcome! - Axver (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand railway stations without geographical coordinates

I've used CatScan to generate a list of railway stations in New Zealand missing geographic coordinates

As far as I can see, there's only one station left to geocode: Beach Railway Station, New Zealand. Would anyone be interested in adding coordinates for this station? -- The Anome (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Matthew25187 (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:TWP

I have proposed a move

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains ---> Wikipedia:WikiProject Rail transport. See WT:TWP#train wikiproject?

Simply south not SS, sorry 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^{τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ}_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:29, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Historic photos available

Adapted from WT:SHIPS, copied from WT:TWP
New Zealand's Alexander Turnbull Library has placed some historic NZ photos on Flickr The Commons with no known copyright restrictions. These include some of New Zealand railways. Very easy to upload to commons using the Flickr tools. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Images should be tagged {{PD-NZ}} and added to commons:Category:Images from the New Zealand National Library. Gwinva (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Conversion of TrainsWikiProject banner to using WPBannerMeta

Any comments on converting the TrainsWikiProject banner to use WPBannerMeta would be welcome over here. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The New Zealand Railways (NZR) assessment categories are inconsistent, the quality ones use "New Zealand Railways" and the importance ones use "NZR". One set will need renaming to make them consistent, so I've chosen the importance ones to be renamed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming guidelines for station articles

The issue of naming guidelines for station articles within the scope of WikiProject NZR has recently been highlighted by user Rich Farmbrough who has moved the article Ngaio Railway Station to Ngaio railway station. This seems to have been done, though not explicitly stated, for compliance with WP:CAPS. The name of this article is now, however, inconsistent with the guidelines in this project's manual of style. I have pointed this out on the talk page of the user concerned but with little success. I'd appreciate your thoughts on what, if anything, needs to be done about the naming convention applied to New Zealand railway station articles. Do we:

• Undo any such changes (away from the current convention of title case) and prevail upon users making such changes to desist from doing so?
• Revise the Manual of Style for this project to make it compliant with WP:CAPS, or the naming conventions used by WikiProject Stations, or whatever other conventions may apply?
• Ignore any such changes?

Or some other course of action? – Matthew25187 (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the exception in WP:CAPS applies, as you capitalise all the words in a proper noun; eg "Grand Central Station" not "Grand central station" ! Get an admin. to revert the move? Hugo999 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Matthew25187 (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Railways articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the New Zealand Railways articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Paraparaumu Line

Re the Paraparaumu Line which is the Wellington suburban section of the NIMT, should the article be renamed to Waikanae Line with the extension of electrified suburban operation to Waikanae on 20 February? See [1]. PS: the Metlink News refers to the Kapiti Line (under Matangi), would that be a better title [2].

Articles on the following Wellington region railway stations are still required: Melling Railway Station, Paraparaumu Railway Station, Porirua Railway Station, Waikanae Railway Station, Western Hutt Railway Station. Hugo999 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The convention seems to be for a portion of a railway line operated as a commuter service for the relevant article to be named after the brand under which the commuter service is marketed, e.g. Hutt Valley Line and Paraparaumu Line. These will typically be the names by which the lines/services will be known on timetables, public notices, etc. Given this, and for consistency with existing similar articles, if the Paraparaumu Line article is to be renamed, it should be to Kapiti Line as this is the name that has been chosen by the regional council to brand the new service. However, any renaming of this article should ideally not take place before 20 February 2011 when the new timetables become effective.

As for the station articles, if you take a look at List of Wellington railway stations there are many stations for which articles have yet to be written. I guess it is just a matter of someone having enough time and access to sufficient source material before these articles can be written. — Matthew25187 (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mana Railway Station and Porirua Railway Station pages done but need coordinates. Does Porirua have a goods facility/siding/yard? Hugo999 (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

After 20 February Paraparaumu Line will be renamed Kapiti Line. The station infobox will have to be changed for every station on the line, and requires someone with knowledge about infoboxes as the terminus of the Kapiti Line is not Kapiti Railway Station but Waikanae Railway Station. Also needed: date for Waikanae station opening in 1886; and coordinates for Paekakariki, Paraparaumu & Waikanae stations plus the following stations in the Hutt Valley: Ava, Woburn, Naenae, Wingate, Taita, Pomare, Belmont. Hugo999 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates added for Paekakariki, Paraparaumu & Waikanae. When the time comes, I can help you with the succession templates for the renamed line. Sw2nd (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well they have had the opening at Waikanae (19th) and I suppose the trains are operating now (from the 20th). So could someone make the changes please. Still needed: Coordinates needed for Mana Railway Station and Porirua Railway Station (Hutt Valley station coordinates transferred from Wairarapa Line article). Hugo999 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Railway disaster

I know there is some obscure logic for doing it, but because some stations in New Zealand are "Railway Station" and others "Train Station" there are problems with s-line succession templates between differently named articles. It also also impossible for outsiders to predict the naming convention used. So I checked out articles on the railway lines and found that many links there lead to the community not to the station, so that didn't help me. Sw2nd (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Auckland (ie Maxx/Veoila) is set to use "x train station", See Template:MAXX (Veolia) stations (the line with default in sets it).

Tranz Metro and Tranz Scenic use "x railway station", see Template:Tranz Metro stations and Template:Tranz Scenic stations.

BTW 1 - added s-rail for the Kapiti Line extension, but can someone update me on what stations the Overlander stops at ???

BTW 2 - added s-rail to the Onehunga Branch but you guys probable should decide whether it should go all the way to the Britomart and what colour it should be represented by.

An old user lurking ;) 91.109.223.12 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems at two stations

I have added a redirect from Kapiti Line Line to Kapiti Line for the Kenepuru Railway Station and Paekakariki Railway Station articles, as they were redlinking to Kapiti Line Line. Just changing Kapiti Line to Kapiti in the station infobox did not seem to work, so perhaps someone can tweak them Hugo999 (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The templates behind the next/previous part of the infobox (ie the whole "s rail" thing) have been setup to call the system tranzmetro rather than metlink. You can probably get an administrator to block rename the affected templates and then get a bot to update all the Wellington area stations affected - try User:Mackensen he was behind the coding for "s rail" and was/is an admin. 2.25.34.33 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC) (old lurker)

Auckland station articles

The names of the Auckland station articles have been changed from XXXX Train Station to XXXX Railway Station. The note accompanying these changes is "consistent naming" but they are in conflict with the MOS that clearly states the Auckland station articles are an exception to the general guideline that station article names should take the form XXXX Railway Station.

I don't have a problem with the Auckland station articles being "consistently named" with the other New Zealand station articles; what I do have a problem with, however, is when it is done against the guidelines in the MOS and without a consensus to do so. It appears that user SnrRailways has been unilaterally stomping on many such articles, not just New Zealand ones. The situation this user has created is unacceptable: either the MOS should change with the appropriate consensus or the Auckland station articles should be put back to their original names.

Thoughts? — Matthew25187 (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Station naming guidelines

I noticed this discussion rather late which is of importance Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Train_stations_.26_subway_stations_and_precision.

Leaflet for Wikiproject NZR at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Australasian stations)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australasian stations). Based on existing station naming. Useddenim (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Dubious reconstruction of NZR Development and Locomotive class history since 2017 and 2018

I consider the modification of a number of locomotive articles ( Particularly that on the 1939 J class) largely written by me R. Miles on the basis of growing up in Sth Canterbury in the mid 1950s and observing the final days of JA express operations on the SIMT and then doing a Masters thesis in Political Science on the decision to phase out the Railcars in 1967-77. Degree and Thesis 1980-1. Awarded 1982.I also have a Canterbury B.Com awarded in 2006 in ACCY by is mainly a degree in Economics at Victoria and a second Canterbury Honours degree taken in 200 and confirmed in 2011. I wrote extensively as a paid commentator on rail and shipping issues for NBR, NZ Herald, Timaru Herald, Southland Times, Press and once or twice Metro in 1983-1998 and also as a Leader writer for the Timaru Herald in 1984-6. i wrote something like 14 articles mainly for NBR, Press and NZ Herald on rail privatisation in 1991-93 as the only journalist extensively working on it. on the basis that the Bolger/Richardson/ Treasury government simply wanted the railways closed on the basis of the closure of the much of the Canadian Rail systems - PE Island, Newfoundladn and most of the Canadian Passenger services,a ccumulated loss and debt and the belief of the Rail Management that the railways survival depended on temporary privatisation and convincing naive operators and buyers that profitable operation was possible.My articles therefore do not expolore the real issues, costs or economics, but simply advance a cause.

Much of the information in the modified J article is wrong. About 1962 ten J class were transfered to the West Coast to replace A class in 1962 and the following year it was decided not to give an A overhaul to one of 16 NI JA and the JA boiler was refitted to J 2011 or 2012. In 1967 the final 3 J overhauls were all given new boilers J1234, 1236, the use of two NI JA boilera were approved ( extensive study of NZR archives in NZ National Archives about 2015, 2016 and the other with a spare JA boiler supplied by North British in 1953-54. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for starting a discussion on this here. I was on a Wikibreak until recently have started editing the NZR locomotive articles and others again. No-one is disputing your credentials or your checking of facts at the National Archives (although some of what you write is skirting WP:OR a bit). The issue is Wikipedia's policies. For example with the J class article there were a lot of claims that weren't verified, which is a requirement (see WP:V). If there are claims in the Wikipedia article that aren't accurate, please remove them. --LJ Holden 02:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)