Talk:Tocumwal railway line, New South Wales

Australia: New South Wales / Riverina / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Tocumwal railway line, New South Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Riverina (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

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

Proposed move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. --rgpk (comment) 21:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tocumwal railway line, New South Wales → Tocumwal railway line — Unique name not requiring disambiguation (as per Talk:Ballarat to Daylesford railway line) and proposed page target currently redirects to Shepparton railway line. Sb617 (Talk) 10:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ambiguous, there are actually two lines terminating at Tocumwal and both called "Tocumwal railway line". One branched from Shepparton in Victoria and the other branched from Narrandera in NSW. Both are closed to passenger traffic but the Victorian line remains open for freight traffic. A better solution would be to create Tocumwal railway line as a disambiguation page linking to both or, alternatively leave it redirecting to the Victorian line (the one still operating) and using a {{redirect}} hat note to point to the closed NSW line. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Isn't this better dealt with by using hatnotes, rather than a disambiguation page? Particularly as we have the Victoria line under Shepparton railway line, meaning that there is not really much ambiguity. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, "Tocumwal railway line, Victoria" is an open line, that still exists. It is only open for freight traffic but trains pass on it daily. Given that is in effect now a branch line of the Shepparton line, it is covered in that article. "Tocumwal railway line, New South Wales" has been closed for over 20 years now and while the line has not been ripped up, there is zero possibility of them being reopened. I would suggest that most readers would be more interested in the operating line than the closed line, no? Your solution would see someone who wanted to find out about the existing line sent off to an article about the closed line and then redirected via a hat note to their preferred page. If a disambiguation page is not thought to be necessary, then it would be better to redirect "Tocumwal railway line" to "Shepparton railway line and place a {{redirect}} tag on the "Shepparton railway line" article to direct readers to the closed line. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.