Jump to content

Talk:Inner West Light Rail

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Stations'

[edit]

I've been quite WP:BOLD and consolidated pretty much all the information in the Station section into the table. It struck me as odd and clumsy the old way. There is no information lost, but it may need a little tweaking to make it work properly at different resolutions, I use 133x768, it should be fine above that res, but I'm concerned about lower res and mobile devices. I might change it a little depending on how it renders on mobile devices. Liamdavies (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Light Rail

[edit]

I think it's worth noting that the government has not entirely done away with the "Metro Light Rail" branding. The official website refers to the stations as "Metro Light Rail stations". As far as I am aware, signs and labels on stations, tickets and trams have not been replaced, yet the term is not mentioned once in this article. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inner West Light Rail template.

[edit]

Is the Inner West Light Rail template really needed? All the info it contains is pretty much in the image in infobox, and it causes a hideous stacking issue on the page. If it is decided that it should be kept I would suggest that we place it where the map currently is and make it autocollapsed. Liamdavies (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to public transit infobox

[edit]

I suggest changing the current tram route infobox to the public transit infobox as the tram infobox is a bit confusing.. Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's an article about a tram line, not a public transport system. The current infobox seems appropriate. Liamdavies (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I don't think the new name accurately reflects the line's assignment. The official website consistently refers to the line as the Inner West Light Rail, notably on the procurement page and the maps. It is also not in line with the CBD and South East Light Rail, which has never been referred to as the Circular Quay line, Kingsford line or the Randwick line.

I don't think there's a need to align it with suburban heavy rail formats. It is not operated by Sydney Trains.

In my opinion, the only reason the network map does not refer to it as the Inner West Light Rail is because it's a light rail map: to refer to it as Light Rail is redundant and to refer to it simply as "Inner West" is non-specific. Of course, that's just my opinion and I have no evidence to support it. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

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 12:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dulwich Hill Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

map

[edit]

can someone please add a map of the line. Kotz (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dulwich Hill Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Light rail stop articles

[edit]

Someone has once again created articles for individual stations. It seems to me that some of the stops may meet notability requirements for their own articles. trainsandtech (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific in documenting for which stations such articles have been created?Fleet Lists (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One is Lilyfield light rail station, another is Leichhardt North light rail station, Hawthorne light rail station, Marion light rail station, Rozelle Bay light rail station. That seems to be it. trainsandtech (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Lilyfiled they are basically empty shells and no succession templates are planned for the light rail line. They will be changed to redirects later today. Some Lilyfiled information may be included in the line article. Fleet Lists (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may just be possible to expand the articles with more information. Your call. trainsandtech (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They have been created before for example Lilyfield MLR station which was changed to a redirect in 2013 and the same should happen this time around. Fleet Lists (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandtech: All done. I have not moved any of the information you added to Lilyfield as it is basically already present although not necessarily under Lilyfield as it may be present elsewhere for the line as a whole. However if you feel Lilyfield should be further expanded, please feel free to do so.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing names

[edit]

@PhilipTerryGraham:Currently in Talk:CBD and South East Light Rail following the opening of the CBD and South East Light Rail there is a discussion as to whether that article should be renamed Randwick and Kingsford Lines or whether for consistency the name of this article should be changed to Inner West Light Rail which currently redirects to this article.Fleet Lists (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this article would make sense to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping the consistency. If the article CBD and South East Light Rail remains named as such, then logically this article should be named Inner West Light Rail. Fork99 (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on whether the primary focus of the article is the physical railway line or the service operated along it. At present it's more the former so a name change would be logical should the CBD&SE article also retain its current name. ~~ (Edited by Trainsandtech (talk · contribs) 10 April 2020.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dulwich Hill Line → Inner West Light Rail – New South Wales, Australia has three physical Light Rail lines using these names Newcastle Light Rail which covers both the physical aspects of the line and services on the line with only one wiki article, Inner West Light Rail name used for physical aspects of the line and Dulwich Hill Line for services on the line with all information in one article where the first name redirects to the second name and CBD and South East Light Rail for the physical aspects of the line and Randwick and Kingsford Lines for services on the line but here conversely the second name redirects to the first one. To get consistency between the article names and redirects, there was a previous move request Talk:CBD_and_South_East_Light_Rail#Requested_move_6_April_2020 to change the names for the CBD and South East Light Rail but the consensus is opposed to that move with the suggestion that the name Dulwich Hill Line should be changed to Inner West Light Rail. Hence the raising of this replacement request to change Dulwich Hill Line to Inner West Light Rail and also reverse the redirects involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleet Lists (talk • contribs) 07:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipTerryGraham:@Marcnut1996:@Fork99:@Trainsandtech:@The Drover's Wife:You may have voted or expressed an opinion on this rename either in the previous move request or here in the section prior to this new move request. Would you please now submit your formal vote on this new move request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleet Lists (talk • contribs) 07:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC) (Note: pings only work when you sign your posts. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
To editors PhilipTerryGraham, Marcnut1996, Fork99, Trainsandtech and The Drover's Wife: reping for nom. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Inner West Light Rail. trainsandtech (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – we have a unique opportunity to expand knowledge about this particular stretch of railway, if a dedicated article was given to it instead of the light rail service that only started running in the latter part of its history thus far, as the alternative of splitting such information between two articles (Sydney Freight Network and Dulwich Hill Line) would simply be inconvenient to both readers and editors. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't follow: this proposal does not do what you just said. It doesn't make sense for an article on a modern passenger light rail project to attempt to cover an earlier heavy rail freight line covering part of the same route, which is why we have those separate articles. This is not a proposal to refocus this article, and I would not support it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: It's the same railway though, so my argument in support of a scope change to the physical railway line is still in agreement with the original proposal. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a railway. It's a new tram line of which the only relation to the previous railway is that it used the former's right of way. If you want to attempt that scope change without a specific consensus, I can tell you right now you'll be reverted in five seconds flat. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: It's... still a railway. Railway vehicles like trams can't run on anything else other than railways, so I don't understand what you're getting at here. "Tram line" = railway. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC
Trams can't run on railways, so the attempt to conflate the two completely different projects on the basis that they traversed the same right of way at different times is getting annoying. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: But they can run on railways. There's literally hundreds of photographs on Commons – such as those at Category:Urbos 3 in Sydney – which shows trams running on what are clearly railway tracks... I don't know what else to say here; this conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere that's legible, so I think we should just stop here and agree to disagree. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The average reader most likely won’t even know or care that the Sydney Freight Network is related to the light rail line. Even I don’t think of it when I think of the Dulwich Hill Line/Inner West Light Rail. Do I google Sydney Freight Network to find line information for a freight line that is not even in use by freight and now used by trams? They’re two completely different things. I would agree however that this article should continue to include information about the line’s history which is the freight line and a separate article for the freight network with greater detail. Fork99 (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I would agree however that this article should continue to include information about the line’s history which is the freight line..." – this is essentially what I was trying to say, and I'm glad somebody was able to articulate it better than I evidently did. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just note that there's precedent for covering a railway line and a tram line separately, even though they use the same right-of-way: Highland Branch and Green Line "D" Branch. Naturally there's some overlap between the articles. Mackensen (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: These are two substantially large articles, so I feel that the split is justified here, whereas a future Inner West Light Rail article detailing the history of the line before the light rail would probably be nowhere near as large as to justify a split into articles detailing the two phases of the line's history each. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are already split here as well, which is why you're getting opposition. No one objects to some mention of the historical line as long as you're not attempting any kind of merge (in full or in part) with the existing train line article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No such plans. Purely reversing the names.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but PhilipTerryGraham seems to be interpreting this in a different way to everyone else. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_West_Light_Rail&oldid=1202959433"