Talk:Transport in Canberra

Australia: Canberra / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Transport in Canberra 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 Canberra (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as High-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.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New article

Good start. A few style notes:

1) Citations should always use cite web or similar templates.
2) Since the headings are "modes": bus, coach, rail etc., Canberra International Airport is inappropriate as a heading - it should be Air Transport (or similar). Will have to compare with similar articles.
3) I'm uneasy about Light Rail being mentioned due to Wikipedia:Crystal Ball. Mention of Light Rail or Capital Metro needs avoid any definitive statements (such as Stations WILL be located here, here and here). On the same note, I have severe concerns about the Capital Metro, Canberra article as well.

4) I would like to find a way to move the History section (or at least parts of it) from ACTION to here. That way the history of ACTION, Qcity and Griffin's Heavy Rail and Tram proposals can be tied together in a single article.

5) I think it IS appropriate for external links to all companies mentioned be included here (and therefore removed from ACTION).

6) This article needs to be linked into the Canberra article.

7) Lastly, the TrainLink coach services do NOT depart from the Jolimont centre. This should have been obvious from their timetables.

MartinL-585 (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) noted

2)

Agree & actioned

3)

Disagree Capital Metro appears to be a serious project with government backing per Capital Metro, whether it happens is another thing, but should be included IMO. Agree 'will happen' is too strong, needs to be toned down to 'is proposed'. If it was just another proposal from a lobby group, I would agree it is Wikipedia:Crystal Ball.

4)

Agree & actioned

5)

Disagree Applying the same logic to Public transport in Sydney, there would be 50 links which is not appropriate per WP:ELPOINTS "Links in the section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links is not a reason to add external links". Looking at other similar articles few have externals and those that do tend to be 'high level' eg the governing authority. In this article only Transport for Canberra is required IMO.

6)

Agree

7)

Agree & actioned Mo7838 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not entirely happy.

(2) "Air" is not a correct heading either. Air is the equivalent of Road or Rail, whereas Bus and Coach describe the vehicle. Based on the Public transport article, perhaps the headings should be Bus services; Coach services; Train services (with heavy, light & high-speed as sub-headings); Airlines?

(3) I suggest retaining my edit as is: with brief mention of the project and retain link to main article. Anything else (including reference to Stage One, when there is no definite project to proceed further) moves into Crystal ball territory.

(4) Was referring to history of Public Transport, not to history of ACTION: i.e. a new section devoted to all relevant PT history, including early transport operators, rail, etc.

(5) Disagree A better comparison would be Buses in Sydney which does list all operators in external links. If you want to compare Public transport in Sydney, then all external PT would need to be excluded, leading to only bus operators being mentioned (other than a brief mention of Light Rail) - which would still justify having all external links.

(8) new: ACTION is not "owned" by the ACT Government. It does not exist as a separate legal entity and therefore cannot be owned by anyone. It is "operated" by the ACT Government as my previous edit stated.

MartinL-585 (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2)

Agree - was using Public transport in Sydney as a template

3)

Agree

4)

Agree - will leave for you to action

5)

Disagree per WP:ELPOINTS

8)

Agree Mo7838 (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of Article

I totally disagree with this rename as this article only covers public transport and not transport as a whole. There certainly would not be consensus for this rename. I suggest that it should be reverted.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the title doesn't reflect the content. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]