This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Australia: New South Wales Hunter Region places and items of interest 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 This template is supported by WikiProject New South Wales.

This template was considered for deletion on 8 October 2010. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

• Some background information - To provide some context for this, Rad1x11 opposed inclusion of this navbox at 3801, even though the navbox includes a valid link to the article. After being told at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains that his discussion was about whether or not the navbox should be included in the article, and not whether 3801 should be included in the navbox,[1] he has moved the entire (same) discussion here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk:3801 as suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#3801:

How can you say that 3801 is not a Hunter icon? Every time it is seen in the area it is on the TV news and the front page of local papers. It's about the only "train" that the general population knows and one of the reasons man visit Steamfest. Use of the navbox in the article is appropriate and it should not be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the flagship of the nation’s biggest operator and the most widely travelled, 3801 is probably the most recognisable steam locomotive in Australia, but this doesn't make it a Hunter icon. As it has been out of service since 2007, its presence wouldn't have been reported any time recently. Visiting steam locomotives often gain coverage from regional television networks and newspapers during visits, but that doesn't qualify them as icons of that region. 3642 was on the Sydney news yesterday, as it often is, because it was operating trips out of Central. Doesn't make it a Sydney icon.

If 3801 was synonymous with rail operations in the area, built there or spent much of its career there, then maybe there would be a case for inclusion, but it was built and based in Sydney and the Hunter was only one of a number of regions that it operated in.

So if it is an icon, it is a NSW one, not Hunter specific. Its only connection was that it operated services in the area including a few headline Newcastle Flyer trips and was overhauled there in the 1980s. If it is a Hunter icon, then it would qualify as an icon in other places which it operated, is it a Sydney, Albury, Dubbo or Nullabor Plain icon? The South Maitland Railways 10 Class that spent their entire career in the Hunter, would be a more appropriate inclusion. Rad1x11 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3801 has a long association with the Hunter. That it has been out of service since 2007 is irrelevant. The MV Sygna has been out of service since 1974, but it was front page news just this week. 3801 could be the most recognisable locomotive in Australia, but that doesn't mean much. People in most of Australia have probably never even heard of it. In the Hunter, the arrival of 3801 is always heralded with some fanfare, other locomotives don't even get a look in. 3801 has even been in the news when it isn't here. While train fanatics might know of individual locos, the general public doesn't. That's not the case with 3801, and that's why it is linked in the navbox. There is nothing justifying removal of the navbox from this article. Navboxes provide navigation between related articles, and the only criteria for inclusion of a navbox is that the article is linked in the navbox. That you don't like it being here is not justification for its removal. If there are other navboxes that include 3801, then they can be added too. Navboxes are not part of the normal content of the article that needs justification for inclusion. As long as the link is vaild, the navbox can be included. In this case, the link is valid. The link to this article is included in the historical section of the infobox because 3801 is a significant part of the Hunter history. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3801 has a long association with New South Wales, not just the Hunter. You made the point that it gains significant media coverage; I noted that it would not have been through its presence in the last 9 years; hence its lack of action since 2007 was mentioned. The MV Sygna is relevant as its beaching was a significant event in the region and its remains have been a feature for 40 years. 3801 was one of thousands of locomotives that operated and was overhauled in the region. Unlike others, it wasn't built in the region or ever based there. Much like the thousands of ships that have passed through Newcastle Harbour. That they have done so doesn't make them worthy of inclusion in the Hunter region navbox.

Using the argument that it is notable to the region because it receives significant media attention, is a bit like saying the Prime Minister is a notable figure to the area because he gets significant media attention whenever he visits.

The suggestion that the only criteria for inclusion of a navbox is that the article is linked in the navbox is incorrect. That implies that any linked article can be included which clearly is not right, there needs to be relevancy of the subject matter to the region, which to date has not been demonstrated. It’s not a case of I don't like it, it’s a case of it not belonging. Something like Newcastle Flyer would be more relevant to the region rather than a locomotive that sometimes operated it. Looking at a similar locomotive article, LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman does not get categorised in Category:Rail transport in Doncaster (where it was built) or any other city or region of Eastern England where it operated. Likewise Locomotive No. 1 that operated the first train in Sydney is likewise not categorised as such.

As we are both fairly resolute in our opinions and no closer to resolving ourselves, I have asked for comments on the project page. Rad1x11 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3801 has a long association with New South Wales - If there was a NSW navbox that included a link to 3801 it could, and should, be included here. Your other arguments along this line are largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that navboxes provide navigation between related articles, like categories do, and when they include links to articles, they should be included in those articles. Navboxes from outside one project are not under the control of another project. They exist across project lines. If an author of historical novels called John Smith wrote a series of books, and one of the books was about 3801, then it would be entirely appropriate for the navbox "Books by John Smith" to be included here. I really do not see you opposition to including a navbox here. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all the chat, the issue of why it is a Hunter icon has yet to be justified. Just because it appears periodically on local news services is not reason enough. If it was a product of the region or spent a large part of its career based there, then yes it would be worthy of inclusion, but it didn’t. All it did was haul trains into the region. No different to trying to claim the MS Queen Elizabeth as a Hunter icon just because it docked in Newcastle Harbour or the Boeing 737 because it operates into Newcastle Airport. Rad1x11 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it was never suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#3801 that the discussion be copied here. You opposed inclusion of a valid navbox at 3801 and then misrepresented the discussion when you posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. You were then told by another editor only that the discussion was about whether or not the navbox should be included in the article, and not whether 3801 should be included in the navbox,[2]. I originally asked you a question on your talk page. You moved that to Talk:3801 and now here. Moving this discussion from place to place to suit your aims is not helping. It smacks of forum shopping.

Just because it appears periodically on local news services is not reason enough - As already explained at length, 3801 has a long association with the Hunter. It was a frequent and popular visitor to Steam Fest, it pulled the Newcastle Flyer for many years, it's the only steam locomotive that Novocastrians actually know. The general class is not notable here, but 3801 certainly is. Your analogies are flawed. 3801 didn't just "dock" at Newcastle railway station. It spent quite a bit of time in the Hunter, unlike the MS Queen Elizabeth, which has been here just once. B737, as a class of aircraft, would never be area icons; that analogy is quite ridiculous. However, No. 2 Squadron RAAF operates Boeing 737 AEW&C aircraft based at RAAF Base Williamtown. It's entirely possible that one of those could become as iconic as the Sabre that used to be in Bettles Park in Raymond Terrace. On the other hand, Both the Mirage III-O and F/A-18 Hornet, as a class of aircraft, have become iconic in the region. Several sporting teams are either named for them or use them in their logos. The Newcastle Jets does both. To use an analogy similar to yours, HMAS Otway is not a product of Holbrook, never spent any of its career there (Holbrook is 260km from the nearest ocean) but it's considered to be an icon in the area only because the town was able to obtain the outer casing and fin of the submarine (not the entire submarine!) to display in a local park. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A third party suggested that the discussion be held here,[3] so not a case of forum shopping, just a case of heeding advice. And I was totally transparent on both this and the other page as to why I had done so. So are you suggesting the discussion should have taken place on my talk page? By being on an article talk page, it is more likely to attract the attention of other editors. It was my error to move it to move it to talk:3801, so when pointed out, I sought to redress.

Difference with HMAS Otway is that it has been a permanent feature of Holbrook for 19 years and is a popular tourist (dare I say it, maybe even an icon) demonstrated by it appearing prominently on the town's website.[4] 3801 was never based in the Hunter, its only extended stay was when behind closed doors under overhaul for 3 years. No different to claiming HMAS Hobart (D63) as a Hunter icon because it underwent an overhaul at the State Dockyard. 3801 was based at Eveleigh (Sydney) for its entire mainline career. In its preserved career it has been based at Enfield, Eveleigh and Thirlmere, but at no point in the Hunter Region.

Being a "popular visitor" doesn't make it a Hunter icon. Using that analogy it could be classified as a Sydney, Goulburn, Dubbo, Melbourne, Perth or anywhere else it drew the crowds, icon. As the state's most well known steam locomotive it was bound to be the biggest drawcard. Rad1x11 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if it is an icon, it is a NSW one, not Hunter specific. - Something can be an icon in more than one place. The Sydney Opera House is an Australian, New South Wales and Sydney icon. It's not an icon for just one of those.

You argued that If it was a product of the region or spent a large part of its career based there, then yes it would be worthy of inclusion, but it didn’t. Well, that applies to HMAS Otway too, regardless of the fact that the outer casing, not the entire boat, is in Holbrook. If you're going to argue that not being built in the region and not spending any of its career in Holbrok is irrelevant, then you have to accept that same argument for 3801. Despite not being built in the Hunter, 3801 can be considered a product of the Hunter because of the major restoration works carried out in the Hunter, as explained at 3801#Preservation

Difference with HMAS Otway is that it has been a permanent feature of Holbrook for 19 years - 3801 worked in the Hunter Region for 62 years, starting a month after it was built, 23 years before HMAS Otway was launched and 54 years before the Otway memorial was dedicated.

No different to claiming HMAS Hobart (D63) as a Hunter icon because it underwent an overhaul at the State Dockyard - Modification of Hobart and the overhaul of 3801 couldn't be any more different. 3801 was stripped down completely. This didn't happen to Hobart until 1962, when it was scrapped.

Being a "popular visitor" doesn't make it a Hunter icon - But being popular with tourists does? You said it yourself a popular tourist (dare I say it, maybe even an icon).

Your arguments are rather inconsistent. You can't argue something applies to one thing and then argue the very same thing does apply to another. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While 3801 did have a connection with the Hunter region, tend to agree that it isn’t notable enough to be classified as an icon of the region. If it was dedicated to Newcastle Flyer services, built or based in the region for much of its life in the area, then the case would be stronger, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. From the evidence it was one of a class of 30 that operated these services with no evidence that it appeared any more often than the others.

As it was built and based in Sydney, it is more of an icon of that city. The Hunter was just one of many regions that it operated in. As the most travelled steam engine in Australia, it is likely to be the most well known, and thus appear in the press more often than others. But just because it appears in file footage on the telly, isn’t enough to make it notable to the area.

It’s a bit like a person, to include them as notable to the region they need to have been born in, raised in, or made a contribution of note, rather than just being a notable person visiting in their ordinary course of business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.225.74 (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are remarkably similar to those of Rad1x11, and they fail for the same reasons.

If it was ... built or based in the region for much of its life in the area, then the case would be stronger, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. - As I've already pointed out, 3801 worked extensively in the Hunter Region for 62 years, starting a month after it was built. That is well beyond its operational lifetime. A very major overhaul, where it was virtually rebuilt from the ground up, was carried out here.

As it was built and based in Sydney, it is more of an icon of that city. - That doesn't exclude it being an icon somewhere else. Also as I've already pointed out, The Sydney Opera House is an Australian, New South Wales and Sydney icon, despite never having left Sydney.

But just because it appears in file footage on the telly - It's not just in file footage. That's a silly thing to argue.

It’s a bit like a person, to include them as notable to the region they need to have been born in, raised in, or made a contribution of note - Again, see the above. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not-notable only a vague affiliation. Next we will be adding McDonalds because it has a few stores in the region. Impala27 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason for including Newcastle Street Circuit and Newcastle 500 articles would be if there was reasonable doubt that the event would occur. As both levels of government and the series organiser has confirmed it will go ahead with nothing other than the usual nimbyism against it, then appears almost certain it will go ahead.

Item does not need have occurred or exist, to be included, precedent set by Hunter Expressway being added to the template in May 2009 [5] before the contract to build it had been let. If items are deemed notable enough for an article, then are worthy of inclusion in the template. Impala27 (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, when an edit of yours is reverted, don't simply restore it without first discussing the contested edits and gaining consensus for those edits to be included. That you may have opened a discussion here doesn't mean that consensus has been reached. In fact that's just edit-warring. Please note that, per WP:STATUSQUO, when contested edits are under discussion, the status quo reigns. that means the version of the article before the links were added. You don't get to add the contested content and let it sit there while discussion is underway. The burden is on you to convince other editors that the content should be included, not that it should be removed.

Now,regarding the links, at this time neither the street circuit or the race itself are significant. For a start, the circuit doesn't even exist. This won't happen until much later in 2017 and even then, unless reliable sources need to determine that the event and street circuit are significant. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's included in this template. There are a lot more Hunter Region articles than are linked in this template, and many of them are far more significant than the articles that you linked. Notability alone is not a reason for inclusion. Please note that your example of the Hunter Expressway, which is a permanent highway, is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which rarely an argument for anything. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the Melbourne Cup, but is one of the few sporting events in the Hunter to gain nationwide coverage. Only other event I can find was a one-off rugby league test. As to its notability, significant enough to gain articles in industry, local, state and national press. Bizarre that an editor who fought tooth and nail in the section above to retain something (3801) with at best only a vague affiliation, is now arguing that something Hunter through and through should not be included. Impala27 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an event that hasn't even happened, so it's not yet significant to the Hunter. As I said, notability alone is not justification for inclusion. As for 3801, unlike what you're attempting to add, it was actually significant, as it was the locomotive that used to pull the Newcastle Flyer for many years. You're probably too young to remember, but it used to take over 3 hours to get from Sydney to Newcastle by car. In most cases it was easier to catch the flyer, so it was just as important, if not more so, than road transport, especially before the F3 freeway was started. Some were forced to use the train, because not everyone had a car. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]