![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm so sorry but after numerous times at trying to fix the problem and much trial and error I have been unable to get the external links for which I used references for the Current Issues section to work properly. If someone would be kind enough to fix this problem I'd be most appreciative because clearly I'm out of my depth. Many thanks. Yimon
You've got to be kidding. It's no more than a novelty tram. No-one actually uses it - other than the odd tourist.
Three Strong Don't Merges, only one incorrect hapharzard statement regarding its patronage (rather irrelivant, I must say) in two months. I'm removing the tag.
I have to say that I don't agree with it being a stub, either. What more can be added? I'll leave others to sort through this, however.
Jarrod
04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: I am talking about
Star City MLR station, Sydney
Jarrod
& 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)
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. Ga rr ie 04:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
Oppose for reasons above as well as the following... They are part of a notable transport network, and equivalent to a network like the Docklands Light Railway, which has its own articles for each station - in other circumstances it would have been a CityRail line which would have its own articles, so I don't see the difference, and I refute views that they are glorified bus stops; the line is very different to the Melbourne tram network as the line has its own right of way for most of its length and has dedicated services; I don't believe bus stops should have articles, but light rail stations (which they are) should have their own articles, to allow good linkage between stations and transport networks. Within a few years the network will be an integrated part of Sydney's transport system and the articles should be integrated within all the Sydney transport stops articles. JROBBO 07:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
|
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)
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:
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)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Light rail in Sydney →
Sydney Light Rail – The network is now officially referred to as Sydney Light Rail here:
http://www.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au. This article was only moved here because it could no longer be called Metro Light Rail after the dissolution of Metro Transport. Sydney Light Rail is perhaps more specific than Light rail in Sydney as this could perhaps be confused with Trams in Sydney and it was incidentally its original name. --Relisted. —
Amakuru (
talk) 23:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
DilatoryRevolution (
talk)
05:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I see at Passenger_rail_terminology#Light_rail "The phrase light rail was coined in the 1970s during the re-emergence of streetcars/trams with more modern technology". As best I can tell, "light rail" is newspeak for "tram". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
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:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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)
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)
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)
Why should it mention the Chatswood-Epping line or its extensions? It has nothing to do with the light rail. It is part of Sydney Metro.
MDRX (
talk)
13:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is the map obscuring a large swathe of text? Mjroots ( talk) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I realise Newcastle Light Rail may be completely separate to the rest of Sydney's light rail tracks however, if this article is aiming to give readers a holistic view of Sydney's light rail services maybe the Newcastle line should be included in this article. At the moment it does seem to be that this article has a large information gap without any information about the Newcastle services so readers may find it difficult to understand if information is in multiple places. I would not even know where to start with finding accurate references for this article if indeed you do want this content.
I am also wondering if the Parramatta stage 2 project should be included in the main Parramatta light rail section or in the extensions part of this article. Does more information need to be included? Should I maybe have just created this other question as a separate talk post? What would provide the best readability and flow? Qwerty123(Pronouns: They/Them) ( talk) 07:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm so sorry but after numerous times at trying to fix the problem and much trial and error I have been unable to get the external links for which I used references for the Current Issues section to work properly. If someone would be kind enough to fix this problem I'd be most appreciative because clearly I'm out of my depth. Many thanks. Yimon
You've got to be kidding. It's no more than a novelty tram. No-one actually uses it - other than the odd tourist.
Three Strong Don't Merges, only one incorrect hapharzard statement regarding its patronage (rather irrelivant, I must say) in two months. I'm removing the tag.
I have to say that I don't agree with it being a stub, either. What more can be added? I'll leave others to sort through this, however.
Jarrod
04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: I am talking about
Star City MLR station, Sydney
Jarrod
& 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)
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. Ga rr ie 04:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
Oppose for reasons above as well as the following... They are part of a notable transport network, and equivalent to a network like the Docklands Light Railway, which has its own articles for each station - in other circumstances it would have been a CityRail line which would have its own articles, so I don't see the difference, and I refute views that they are glorified bus stops; the line is very different to the Melbourne tram network as the line has its own right of way for most of its length and has dedicated services; I don't believe bus stops should have articles, but light rail stations (which they are) should have their own articles, to allow good linkage between stations and transport networks. Within a few years the network will be an integrated part of Sydney's transport system and the articles should be integrated within all the Sydney transport stops articles. JROBBO 07:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
|
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)
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:
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)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Light rail in Sydney →
Sydney Light Rail – The network is now officially referred to as Sydney Light Rail here:
http://www.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au. This article was only moved here because it could no longer be called Metro Light Rail after the dissolution of Metro Transport. Sydney Light Rail is perhaps more specific than Light rail in Sydney as this could perhaps be confused with Trams in Sydney and it was incidentally its original name. --Relisted. —
Amakuru (
talk) 23:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
DilatoryRevolution (
talk)
05:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I see at Passenger_rail_terminology#Light_rail "The phrase light rail was coined in the 1970s during the re-emergence of streetcars/trams with more modern technology". As best I can tell, "light rail" is newspeak for "tram". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
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:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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)
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)
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)
Why should it mention the Chatswood-Epping line or its extensions? It has nothing to do with the light rail. It is part of Sydney Metro.
MDRX (
talk)
13:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is the map obscuring a large swathe of text? Mjroots ( talk) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I realise Newcastle Light Rail may be completely separate to the rest of Sydney's light rail tracks however, if this article is aiming to give readers a holistic view of Sydney's light rail services maybe the Newcastle line should be included in this article. At the moment it does seem to be that this article has a large information gap without any information about the Newcastle services so readers may find it difficult to understand if information is in multiple places. I would not even know where to start with finding accurate references for this article if indeed you do want this content.
I am also wondering if the Parramatta stage 2 project should be included in the main Parramatta light rail section or in the extensions part of this article. Does more information need to be included? Should I maybe have just created this other question as a separate talk post? What would provide the best readability and flow? Qwerty123(Pronouns: They/Them) ( talk) 07:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)