Talk:Puke Puke Express

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand Trains: in New Zealand Trains Portal This redirect 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 Associated projects or task forces: /  This redirect is supported by WikiProject New Zealand Railways.

This article is based on a photograph's description. The description has mis-identified the location to be in the Manawatu's sand dune country, when in reality it's a location in the southern Waikato (which is collaborated by other images). No other sources point to there ever being a branch railway off the Himatangi-Sanson tramline, out towards the coast, nor a saw mill (that country was flax at the time). Therefore:

- Should this article be deleted?

- If not, it needs to be renamed to something else. Old sawmill camps rarely have wikipedia articles. Is this one notable enough?

- Note the title of this page is a joke caption on an old photograph and no NZR timetable show a "Puke Puke express" DoctorFosterGloster (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer to restore the version of this article prior to the 16 September 2022‎ reversion. It explained the issue you've raised. Johnragla (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A request for speedy deletion has been made by adding a template which said: "If this template is removed, do not replace it." I think that "A library client thinks this image is more likely to have been taken in the Mangapehi-Tiroa area or Pukemako" on https://natlib.govt.nz/records/22322213 is not a valid reason for deleting the article but should be discussed on the discussion page, please. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnragla: Thank you for mentioning the version of the article prior to its faulty reversion. Thus, I read https://www.jstor.org/stable/24052681 and then exported this stub as a section into the article Ellis and Burnand. A re-direct will be installed.NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you DoctorFosterGloster (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]