Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Australian Transport

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Council‎ | Proposals

The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The proposed WikiProject was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description edit

This project aims to create and improve articles about Transport in Australia, including trains, trams, buses, and planes. This is a very broad topic, however topics relating to transport in Australia can be very lacking compared to similar articles about Europe. There is also already a sizable amount of people who contribute significantly to Australian transport on Wikipedia. (note: original proposal made by NotOrrio, I have rewritten this) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of important pages and categories for this proposed group

List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.
Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?
These Wikiprojects are very broad, and there is only a small section of the editors involved in either project who work specifically with Australian transport. This means that people interested in the same subject are split between Wikiprojects. It can be hard to find people to work with, and uniting them in one Wikiproject will help the topic significantly.

To Do edit

  • Expand existing articles, and bring some to GA or FA status.
  • Engage in policy and naming suggestions regarding Australian transport.
  • Serve as a base for discussion about Australian transport.
  • Engage with Wikiproject Australia and Wikiproject Transport, and bring in editors from them.
  • Determine the notability of articles within the project at AfD, and add reliable sources if possible.

Support edit

Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.

  1. NotOrrio – As the proposer I will join my main focus is Buses, Trains and trams around the country mainly Melbourne
  2. ThylacineHunter – I am willing to join AFTER this has been set up (trains, trams, paddle boats). UPDATE... I possibly could be tempted back to help with some of the setting up (as long as there are others involved). I have already been working on a draft of an updated naming convention for Australian rail transport (train, tram and light rail) covering names of lines, services and stations as well as the BSicon diagrams. This can also be expanded to cover bus and ferry (and any other) services.
  3. Steelkamp – I would join this project if it was set up by someone else, but I am not interested in helping to set it up, and believe my time on Wikipedia would be better spent expanding articles and other content-related things. I think it would be useful to have a noticeboard for Australian-transport related discussion. Currently, that only occurs on state-based Wikiprojects and on article talk pages for public transport, whereas roads already has its own Wikiproject and place to discuss things.
  4. JML1148 - I'd be willing to join, and I'd likely work on transport history, train lines, and future proposals. I'd be willing to help set it up, but not be the main contributor. I know a few people (specifically Wongm and HoHo3143) who may be interested, and I will reach out to them.
  5. Fork99 – I would join in a similar fashion to Steelkamp; that is, I would not help set the WikiProject up. If there’s anything needed from me, please ping me or leave a talk message on my page. My focus is on NSW railways, however my watchlist includes all state/territory railways, buses, ferries, trams related articles (+ New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong).
  6. HoHo3143 I'd be willing to join after it has been set up as I have other priorities right now.
  7. Purin128AL - I'm willing to join and I'll work on creating a standard and expanding for road and rail articles/templates to bring them up to European article standards. I can help set the project up given enough support.

Wavering towards enthusiastic support of a steady development edit

If the conversation (and the loosening up in the context of some of the above showing their knowledge of various observations and subjects - at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Operator’s_rolling_stock_name_convention_(especially_for_Australia))

is anything to go by, I consider the project is viable. Pity there is not the energy in engaging at that talk page actualizing into the draft of the project. JarrahTree 03:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. JarrahTree - I do not support this proposal, especially with the obvious apprehensions by people leaving messages so far - it takes a number of experienced editors to properly set up a project. I do not see enough editors to actually set up and put into a state where it is acceptable. And also nobody from the project council has offered further comment, it is not at a point where it can be 'just started up', there is no sign of consensus of the scope, and the materials laid out show limited understanding of the process that a project council member might see to approve and sign off... JarrahTree 09:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JarrahTree: Could you clarify what you mean with "materials laid out", and what can be done to fix it? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The current text about the proposed project found on this page - specially the limited component partial views of scope. = materials laid out.
    To fix? - with a conversation between participants, reached by consensus - so far editors have identified their areas of interest in particular narrow ranges - what is needed is a sign of a really good conversation that shows understanding of the potential issues to raise when establishing a project of the range that will be possible. At least that is a suggestion at this point, maybe others have better ideas? I think conversation is a basic ingredient. JarrahTree 12:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment edit

  1. JarrahTree - the important thing about a project like this is the positive creation of uniform, consistent and persistent avoidance of state or regional exceptionalism, or form of transport exceptionalism - having created Australian Maritime History, I remember well Wongm asking whether the idea of this current proposal was worth going for quite some time ago, I was not positive. It is imperative that the critical mass of interest is enough to both set up the project - and to have enough energy to carry through and keep going to a point where it covers all of Australia with persistence and consistency.
    The fact that most 'joiners' here do not want to help set the project up, we really do not have enough hands on deck yet. It would be better to leave it to rot at this stage, rather than create an unsustained project. We need more participants willing to get the full scope of the possible range that the project can cover. The importance of a comprehensive and sensible overview, means that any one form of transport in any one state is not what a project like this is about. Also the importance of a credible project is a well set up assessment system, and something that the participants can claim involvement in a well set up project.
    In the old days, there were uninvolved template makers/project tweakers who would offer to help 'set up' projects, there might be some around who could take up some of the unwanted tasks... Otherwise, we need more people here and the comments so far are simply not enough to create a good project. I do hope more arrive, and give us hope JarrahTree 11:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fork99 - I’ve noticed that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand Railways. Considering that that project is somewhat inactive, however it’s not fully inactive, I would not object to having this potential WikiProject merged with that one. We (Australia) already do a lot of things jointly with New Zealand in real life (think: ANZAC Day, Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, free trade agreements, etc), why not extend it to Wikipedia? Fork99 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues with merging these 2 are...
    1. that they are just about railways, while this one is all forms of transport.
    2. if we do decide to change the assessment banner to be included under the main WikiProject Australia banner (there is a discussion on the project talk page about this here), then there will be issues with including New Zealand.
    I personally feel that this should be kept like the other Australian related WikiProjects (eg Boita, Music, Sport, etc) --ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Templates (Currently in draft stage) edit

Discussion edit

I am expecting a minimum of atleast 3-5 editors (including me) before I officially restart the project, I hope that I can attract more editors in after starting the project by adding banners to pre existing pages NotOrrio (talk) 2:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
NotOrrio (talk) 2:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

3-5 editors is too few, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Closing proposals. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no recognition of the existing projects Australian Roads and Australian maritime history - or the specific nature of how other countries subsidiary transport projects work: such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Transport_in_India - where in the Australian context, both the roads and maritime history projects could be seen as the Indian project designates - as descendant projects, and there is nothing whatsoever getting in the way if adequate numbers of editors were enthusiastic for an Australian railways project. As it is, there is inadequate reaching out communicating in the Australian sphere of the proposed project for an adequate barometer/check as to whether there is a potential critical mass available mass at this stage.

Also I would suggest that for a project like this to get off the ground, it is not the result of one editors efforts, for a properly constituted project it is a collaboration of quite a few editors who are clearly communicating and consistent contributors, and who have clear agreement of methods and ways forward. JarrahTree 09:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ​I suggest you propose this as a task force. There are simply too few pages for this WikiProject, and I find it unlikely that this proposal will progress further. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElijahPepe: This proposal has problems, but too few pages in its scope is not one of them. The main problem is that the user who proposed this project has not reached out to editors who are working within the area of Australian transport. The proposal is also not very fleshed out and it seems to have been created on a whim. Steelkamp (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I really dont see how there would be too few pages considering this wiki project is expected to cover all forms of transportation in a country of 25 million people especially considering there are smaller projects such as Australian roads and australian maratime history that are able to succeed NotOrrio (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Those projects were able to demonstrate interest and, as I see, have a greater project count. They were also created when WikiProjects for virtually any topic were created. The passage of time has left those projects dormant. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
by saying this im not saying there aren't problems but i believe you addressed an non existant issue NotOrrio (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too few pages - the large size of the Australian transport as a subject in its entirety is not touched upon adequately - when considering the full scope and range of the subject, it is quite large.
I, admittedly, am not familiar with the Australian transport system, but demonstrating potential is difficult. I will, again, suggest you create a task force for this. If the task force ends up gaining traction and you can demonstrate such a range for this topic, I'd support this proposal. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
created on a whim - the lack of process of developing an argument here or anywhere, and the lack of exploring the full range of opportunities in reaching out to other parts - shows exactly that.
issues - lack of understanding of the processes, also that are understanding what longer term editors might offer suggestions that need to be taken seriously.

I do not think there is much hope for this proposal unless experienced editors actually get involved and help develop the idea of the project and encourage others to be involved.

small projects Australian Maritime History and Australian Roads are not smaller in range or scope - it all depends on the potentiality of where editors create more content. The Australian Transport project might be considered a very large project on the basis of the potential time and effort to tie in material at all levels - more organising of categories and things than actually necessarily creating new content.
organisation - for this project to get to square one there needs to be signs of communication and cooperation between editors - I see nothing yet. JarrahTree 04:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NotOrrio: Do you intend on making this a task force? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

elijahpepe - It is hardly NotOrrio's perogative to determine what happens with this proposal, there has been no attempt to engage the Australian editing community on the subject/topic as to the viability of the project proposal - and no engagement with editors who might or might not assist - it really is something that is in limbo until there are some substantial steps one way or other... JarrahTree 11:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to re add the current userbox down here as per conseus for a previous mfd it can be viewed right here
This user is a member of
WikiProject Australian Transport.
NotOrrio 3:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @NotOrrio: @HoHo3143: @Steelkamp: I've noticed that you all have essays/user subpages that may be useful for the project. Would you mind them being mentioned on the Wikiproject page and/or being moved into Wikipedia: space? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what pages are you most interested in if you are interested in? If you are interested in the victorian railways sources page i suggest formatting it and adding the sources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Sources some of which ive already added in NotOrrio (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was the railway sources page. I might do that now. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JML1148: I'm not sure what subpage of mine you're talking about. Steelkamp (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp: I think I was looking at User:Steelkamp/sources? I don't know why I pinged you, considering that's a more personal subpage. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a start in the process edit

There has been movement... There is a request at the AWNB

Renotifying people about the proposed wikiproject australian transport -

that is one of the basic requirements - to see if anyone is interested in involvement... JarrahTree 02:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the project on track edit

I haven't been that active on wikipedia for a few weeks and havent been checking back up on this page for a while and it appears that while I left the project had achieved the reccomended supporter count of 6 to 12.

Since the project has enough supporters I will begin to setup and project and hopefully have it complete in a week. NotOrrio (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification:
I am not starting this project on my own, I will only prepare for setup and get inspiration as of right now I am waiting for 2 or more editors willing to help me before I officially set up. NotOrrio (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you to say - see comments above and read carefully - it is at the project council level - participants of the process have not been seen to sign off/approve yet.


I have no interest in this project or supporting it in any way if that is the way the processes are understood. JarrahTree 08:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now I am not focused in fully setting up the project and I have no interest in doing so alone.
Currently I will be mainly focusing on preparing for setup i.e getting inspiration from other transport wikiprojects, looking for sources, etc. NotOrrio (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I said I was not interested in helping with the set up of this project, but I've changed my mind. I see there is enough support from active editors in the project's area that this proposal has been successful. Steelkamp (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible project to unite us in this possible WikiProject edit

@NotOrrio: @JarrahTree: @JML1148: @ThylacineHunter: @Steelkamp: @HoHo3143: @Purin128AL: Considering the somewhat lacking support for this project (including from myself), let’s see if I can boost support.

Regarding a discussion/argument that has gone stale at Template talk:WAGR Locomotives#Extra categories. Scroll past the 2014 discussions, and read from the first 2023 reply from me. The gist is that I want to merge the Template:WAGR Locomotives, Template:WAGR Railcars, and Template:MRWA Locomotives navboxes together, in a similar fashion to how Victoria has done it as each section can be collapsed, or expanded to make it look neat and tidy. Despite what @Bahnfrend: (hey wanna join this potential WikiProject by the way?) argues, then vanishes from the discussion, I don’t support adding privately operated locomotives (such as Aurizon, etc), unless it looks okay in the navbox.

On a related note, I propose adding collapsible sections at Template talk:NSWLocos#Readability improvements.

Thoughts everyone? Fork99 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it always was hard to navigate the WA locomotives with them split into multiple navboxes. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have got an operational WikiProject talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Transport, we can take this conversation there. Steelkamp (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Australian_Transport&oldid=1181049277"