Talk:Light rail in Sydney

message: *Strong Don't merge - I don't know who suggested this - but someone wants to merge the main article with each page on every single light rail stop (well not even that - they didn't even suggest that each page should be done!). This is completely ridiculous and whoever suggested it (who I might add hasn't given any reason or rationale for it) obviously doesn't know anything about the network. There is every suggestion that this line will expand into a network of light rail lines in the near future (most importantly with the planned City Loop) and so it should have a page for each stop where that is feasible. To save room I have kept the monorail and light rail stop together where the location is the same, and for the Central station stop I have put it as part of the Central Station article to cut down on unnecessary articles. The others, though, whilst they need expansion, need their own articles. And I don't see any difference between this line and the Docklands Light Rail which gets its own page for each station, eg. King_George_V_DLR_station. This is a ridiculous suggestion and all attempts to merge should be ignored. (JROBBO 06:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know previous comment was quite a while ago but how about some REFERENCES? Encylopedic content must be verifiable.Garrie 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Suggestion (March 2006)

message: & I've removed all the merging proposal tags and stub tags, and added the MetroTransport navigation tag to all the stations (including central).
If people really think that there is vital information lacking from these station articles, then they can put the stub tags back on. Similarly, if enough opposition is raised to each station having their own article, despite them all having a high quality nagivation system and info box template, then merging proposal tags can be re-added and discussion restarted.
In the mean time, however, there is no specific information lacking from any of the articles and only oppositions has been raised to the merging proposal, with the India-residing  user who initially tagged the articles making very little  argument. Jarrod 05:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trams are in the process of being extended from Lilyfield. It is due to be completed in 2014. Anon2468 (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of MLR stations 

message: Currently (;) ) each of the issues in the current issues section cites only primary sources. These should be removed and replaced with secondary sources - if they are really that significant they have been reported on in the press. I know I have read it in the press and seen the news coverage about the City of Sydney's proposals, and the Government's rebuttals, but I don't have enough information to replace the primary source citations. Garrie 04:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current issues section 

message: Merge I see that someone has beaten me to a merger proposal, one that was poorly received. Since that time, however, precious little has been added to these pages, despite hints at what could be there.
Let's be realistic: these stations are bus shelters elevated by a few inches. They share one of two establishment dates, lack facilities to speak of and there is little to document besides what they are nearby. The (admittedly contested) notability criteria is that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". This is not the case for any MLR station, though it is certainly the case for the network as a whole. My suggestion is:
*Encode the info box data as table rows on the Metro Light Rail page
*Create subsections for stations with special features, such as Star City, Paddy's Markets and Central
Please be clear that I am not questioning the value of light rail as a transport mode or the notability of the network as a whole. Joestella 12:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ambivalent on these. On one hand, they're not stubs, and provide information that could potentially be of use to someone. On the other hand, that information is probably available from the system website, and I'm not sure much of interest could be added, as you point out above. Rebecca 05:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is at variance with your view earlier today that "Tram stops are a nonsense - no one is trying to write articles about them." Joestella 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And all but one of them are stubs. Joestella 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You added the stub tags yourself after Rebecca wrote that comment. How is that fair? JROBBO 10:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A stub is defined by a lack of content, not by a tag. All but the Central article are clearly stubs, always have been. The stubs merely help users to find information in need of work. Joestella 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose addressing the notability criteria is out of the question JROBBO? Being part of something notable is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Joestella 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no notability criteria. The closest thing to this is a railway station, which are all considered notable, at least in a metropolitan area. Again, I don't see the difference between this and a CityRail station. JROBBO 08:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no notability criteria? JROBBO, you need to read Wikipedia:Places of local interest and understand that just because notability has not been assessed for railway stations, does not mean notability has been rejected by the Wikipedia community. Joestella 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't apply in this case - the light rail and its stops are not just a "local" thing; they are notable on a much wider scale. I never said notability has been rejected - it has been accepted on a wide scale and no stations have been deleted. JROBBO 07:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Suggestion (December 2006) 

message: It would be nice to see something like what Ive created here in this article (it could include transfers and the like too). Please feel free to continue my work. 
Rail route template info can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ROUTE
Template pictrograms here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Route_diagram_template/Catalog_of_pictograms
Nbound (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Something like this would be a great addition to the article.Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rail route map

message: With major changes happening to the branding of public transport and the structure of the light rail network in Sydney, I think it is time to re-evaluate the structure of Wikipedia's coverage of the light rail network.
I propose the following changes:
*moving this article to Light rail in Sydney and merging with Metro Transport Sydney. This article would contain information about the history of the company / network, ticketing and the tram fleet, and a brief description of each line.
*creating two new articles (Inner West Light Rail and CBD and South East Light Rail) for the individual lines.
*redirecting the articles for individual stops to Inner West Light Rail. These articles are short (and aren't really growing) and feature a lot of duplicate content. Indeed, most only contain a few sentences of unique material. The stops are generally fairly simple and are all relatively new, so there just isn't much to say. This will be exacerbated when the new line is built, as most stops will be on road and will be of an even simpler design. I can't see any justification for creating articles for these new stops, and I don't think it is desirable to have one line with articles for each stop and another line with no articles about the stops.
I've had a go at creating the Inner West article to demonstrate how this would work.
Gareth (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganising MLR articles 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/sydney/
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: I've been browsing deleted articles, and I came across the one for the Citadis 305. What's currently provided on this page isn't half as informative as what was on the deleted page, but obviously it's a bit much to warrant its own article - after all, it is only one variation of a much larger family of vehicles. Would it be an idea to split the current rolling stock section so that information on the vehicles can be expanded upon without detracting from the relevance of the information provided, and including a redirect link?
GWR 2019 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of Rolling Stock section - should it be done? 

message: The article does not currently mention the Chatswood-Epping line nor its extensions. They have been in operation for some time. Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lines 

message: Why is the map obscuring a large swathe of text? Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Map obscuring text