Talk:Holsworthy railway station, Sydney

Australia: Sydney / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Holsworthy railway station, Sydney 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 Sydney (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.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: Stations 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.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

Trackplan[edit]

I vote for keeping the trackplan for this station, even if the station and track arrangement is simple. The fact that it is simple does not make the information (image) less encyclopaedic or less factual. Many Wikipedia users argue against removing trackplans. See also Images and media for deletion. Nisselua 07:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to decide? The article already covers the information. We need a station map, not a trackplan that adds nothing to the article - if you create a proper station map, I will agree with keeping it; but let's not put them in when the information that there are two platforms and two tracks is already covered (several times) by the article. My keep arguments are against Endarrt, whom I believe to be a troll and sockpuppet, for his ridiculous overdeletion. Why do I have to go over this time and time again? Let's create station maps, not useless trackplans. JRG 07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see from the edit-history and the comments on the delete discussions, many people are interested in this subject. In general people vote for keeping them. As a compromise I suggest adding a gallery section to the stations (example Narwee, and put the trackplan there. If someone later add a station map (example Redfern), it could be added to the gallery. I don't see the point in deleting the trackplan and then later add a station map from scratch. The purpose of the trackplan and station maps overlap considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisselua (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a pity that the trackplans weren't uploaded in svg format, would allow for an easier conversion process to station maps. I say keep for reference at the very least though, even if the image is simple, it gives the station articles a general theme and I really don't like to needlessly distress users that contribute so much anyway. aliasd·U·T 15:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]