Jump to content

Talk:Light rail in Sydney

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

Merge Suggestion (March 2006)

[edit]
  • 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))[reply]

You've got to be kidding. It's no more than a novelty tram. No-one actually uses it - other than the odd tourist.

  • Strong Don't merge - This "novelty tram" is more heavily patronised than some CityRail lines, with 4 million passengers annually according to its own figures (which would be quite accurate given that tickets are issued by a conductor to everybody on board). See their website. This is a line-haul system with high-quality stops and is not currently laid out as the sort of tram route where every tram stop having its own page would be manifestly absurd, as may be the case in Melbourne or elsewhere where they are more analogous to individual bus stops. These are named stations and appear on maps as such. SM247 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Don't merge - What's wrong with having a small article on each station? It's a great template. Unless Wikipedia is really struggling for disk space and we should all start being frugal, I really see no reason to not have individual articles.

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Cleanup of MLR stations

[edit]

& 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)[reply]

  • Trams have NEVER extended from Lilyfield!!! We might have to wait until Nathan Rees gets suspended as NSW Premier.
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)[reply]

Current issues

[edit]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yimon (talk • contribs) 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current issues section

[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge Suggestion (December 2006)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And all but one of them are stubs. Joestella 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You added the stub tags yourself after Rebecca wrote that comment. How is that fair? JROBBO 10:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Rail route map

[edit]
Legend
 Central Station
Capitol Square
Paddy's Markets
Exhibition Centre
Convention Centre
Zone 2 Begins
Pyrmont Bay
Star City
John Street Square
Wentworth Park
Glebe
Jubilee Park
Rozelle Bay
Lilyfield
Dulwich Hill Extension (Under Construction)

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)[reply]

I agree. Something like this would be a great addition to the article.Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganising MLR articles

[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • Support renaming to Sydney Light Rail, oppose decapitalising - For point 1, it is the official name and the name already generalises light rail in Sydney. Definitely a better name than "Light rail in Sydney". For point 2, capitalised names are the official names and are found in the Light Rail website above too. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We use WP:COMMONNAME, so what a system names itself is slightly less relevant. Additionally, light rail in Sydney has previously had different names, the current article name is a 'catch all', just as we have Trams in Melbourne even though they are operated by Yarra Trams. In the same regard, Railways in Sydney deals with the history of Sydney's railways, while Sydney Trains deals with the current body carrying out passenger service; if this page were large enough for a split, so be it, but as it is a redirect is best. Regarding the moves that just occurred, I have no problem with that, it builds consistency. Liamdavies (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree that the current title is a "topic in place", but the content of the article is very clear that the subject is a single, very specific thing with a proper name, not the general topic of light rail in Sydney. In fact, it is that incongruity that prompted this proposed move to begin with. Niamh (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, ok. It wasn't very well represented in the article, but when I went to the official site, there is indeed a body called Sydney Light Rail. As long as the relevant rewriting happens, I wouldn't object to a move to focus on that body rather than the general topic. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is not about the current entity alone. It covers the history of light rail in Sydney (including the three different operating names), the planned extensions, fleet acquisitions (most of which done under differing names), and planned systems elsewhere. It is a cover all for the situation at the moment in Sydney. Given the coverage it gives (and should be expanded to give), the name should be a catch all name, the current name is exactly that. Liamdavies (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cover the history of light rail in Sydney. See Trams in Sydney. This article needs contextualizing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Trams in Sydney cover the history of light rail in Sydney? How does this article not cover the histroy of light rail in Sydney? Liamdavies (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and restructure and treat the article as a spin out of Trams in Sydney. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Part of the problem with that is that, locally, these routes aren't popularly called trams at all. To a Sydneysider, even one born long after the Sydney network was long gone, tram refers to the old network which closed in 1961, or to the Melbourne network which they kept and have extended and upgraded. To people on both sides of the Murray, it's an important part of the identities of the two rival cities that Melbourne has trams and Sydney doesn't. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong national ties to a topic? I think that is way overboard. It's a very limited area tram service, branded "Sydney Light Rail". It has less cultural significance than red rattlers, not enough to tie anything to. This file, File:Metro Light Rail Wentworth Park Stop.jpg, suggests the term "tram" applies and is in use. Whether or not this new service is popularly called "trams" doesn't change the fact that they are trams. I'm not suggesting that "tram" should be used in the title. If "trams" becomes further obscure, we could rename Trams in Sydney to Light rail in Sydney. Whatever the titles, this article is about a recently built limited service and some recent announcements of expansion, and conceptually it belongs inside the larger historical treatment.

    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)[reply]

  • They are very much different things, over thirty years apart. No one thinks of the light rail as a tram system, yet the vehicle is considered a tram (probably something to do with the Australian vernacular, the Glenelg tram was always named as such, where as the vehicles are much closer to Interurban). I agree that the terms are highly related, and notions of the period, but Trams in Sydney doesn't deal with the light rail at all, and Light rail in Sydney does, in a broader manner than simply the Sydney Light Rail system/line. The name fits the article, if you want a mass reorganisation that is a completely different discussion to the move request currently in progress. Liamdavies (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me be quite sure that I understand you... You are saying that this topic has no strong national ties? Really?
  • Agree that the term tram is in use in this advertising poster. I'm afraid that this is rather misleading so far as common use goes. The removal of the Sydney trams is now seen as a particularly near-sighted and incompetent political decision. Some would like to brand the current light rail a tram, some would not. It is Wikipedia's strong and consistent policy not to take sides in this, but instead to follow the common usage whatever it may be. Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of national cultural heritage, no, I don't think Sydney Light Rail ranks highly. I think we are agreeing that Sydney Light Rail is a well recognized brand. I support the move, but note, in regards to article content and structure, that this relatively new, small but expanding public transport corporation would be better contextualized as a new phase of Trams in Sydney. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trams in Sydney is already so large per WP:PAGESIZE that adding more to it would be a bad idea; yes it should be mentioned, but it is not a continuation, it has nothing to do with Sydney trams, and that is how everyone thinks of it. The concept of a Sydney light rail is well recognised, but the brand is not, the brand is a little over five months old, and is just the latest in a series of names. This article is about a system/line/network/concept, not the operating entity, to rename it to that of the operating entity would remove its historical context, which is distinctly separate from that of Sydney's tramway system. In the same manner, Trams in Melbourne is the head article, not Yarra Trams, the cable system is mentioned, but it is not to the depth that the (underwhelming) Melbourne cable tramway system should be at, which again is separate from Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company - the company that operated the cable system. Yes the light rail should be mentioned, but that does not remove the historical context of this article, which is focused on the 'new' system - of Light rail in Sydney. Liamdavies (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I see the problem. You are arguing that this article is not very significant to Australia. That's such a complete misinterpretation of WP:ENGVAR (of which MOS:TIES is a subsection) that I'm not quite sure how to reply. The article may or may not be important to Australia, but WP:TIES is purely about how important Australia is to the article. Two completely different things.
  • So far as merging the article on the current light rail system with the article on the earlier Sydney tram system (which ran over the Sydney Harbour Bridge, on the carriageway then intended to eventually be the north-east rail line, and now occupied by the Cahill Expressway, and which also gave us the expression Bondi Tram), that's a different issue, but as a Sydneysider I'm afraid I find it somewhat insulting! But propose that as a merge, not as a move. Considering the current size of the Trams in Sydney article, it's most unlikely to succeed regardless of my feelings on the matter, but it's not the issue here.
  • Agree that there may well be a better name for the article on the historical network. But again, that's not the issue here. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A classic case which we should include if we ever expand WP:official names#Rationale, which already reads in part Official names may be changed at any time, at the whim of the authority concerned. Common names change more slowly, reducing the maintenance required to keep them accurate and current. If the move from Metro Light Rail was only ... because it could no longer be called Metro Light Rail after the dissolution of Metro Transport (my emphasis) then that would just show that those involved in the move didn't understand the policy, but I don't think that's true at all. I can think of several good reasons, and note that Metro Light Rail is now rightly a DAB, so even if the claim was true about that being the only reason, that would just make that move the right move for the wrong reasons. Andrewa (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Sydney Light Rail is only a semi-official name. The system's new logo (as seen in the infobox) is branded 'Transport - Light Rail'. This is also the branding which has appeared on the new trams. I think the only real reason for the adoption of the name Sydney Light Rail in some contexts is because Transport - Light Rail is so horribly vague and generic. I proposed moving the article to 'Light rail in Sydney' because Sydney Light Rail wasn't being used at the time (or at least I wasn't aware of it) and was only a former name of the line/system. The system didn't appear to have an official name - otherwise I probably would have proposed using it instead. I used the official names for the articles about the individual lines - which is why 'Light Rail' is capitalised in those titles. In selecting 'Light rail in Sydney' for the main article, I was also influenced by the titles of 'Buses in Sydney' and the various 'Trams in X' articles. If a separate Western Sydney/Parramatta network is ever developed, I think it makes sense to cover both networks in the one article - like the way Tramways in Île-de-France covers all the scattered lines of Greater Paris. A generic title makes this easier. Gareth (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if we're going with a descriptive title, Topic in/of Place is the usual convention. We have, for example, Sports in the United States and Culture of London, not American sports and London culture. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's because if one says "American sports", one might think of typically American sports, like baseball or American football and not necessarily of sports in general in the US. Similarly with London, one might think about the specific London culture, for instance Londonian dialects or behaviour or traditions particular to its inhabitants, instead of theatres and concerts and whatnot in London. No such possibility of confusion arises with "Sydney light rail". walk victor falk talk 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transport in Azerbaijan, not Azerbaijani transport; Health care in Australia, not Australian health care; Architecture in Berlin, not Berlin architecture; Parks in Sydney, not Sydney Parks; I could go on. The title should be consistent with Wikipedia's usual naming conventions. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 10:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Rolling Stock section - should it be done?

[edit]

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)[reply]

New lines

[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Map obscuring text

[edit]

Why is the map obscuring a large swathe of text? Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Newcastle line need to be in this article? Where should Parramatta stage 2 be placed?

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Qwerty123M: Newcastle isn't considered to be part of Sydney, so it should only be mentioned in this article if relevant and/or briefly as a "see also" link. See Regions of Sydney for a Wikipedia explanation of the boundaries of metropolitan Sydney.
This article appears to summarise "light rail as a whole in Sydney" (including L1-L3 and the Parramatta lines), and as such, the bulk of the information for each line should be in the respective line articles: Inner West Light Rail, CBD & South East Light Rail, and Parramatta Light Rail. Fork99 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Light Rail Network

[edit]

I did some modifications to the page to reference the fact that Parramatta Light Rail is not part of the Sydney Light Rail network.

Firstly all documentation from the tfnsw website lists Parramatta Light Rail as separate (timetables maps, on the page itself everything is separate.

On the documentation L1, L2, L3 is specifically written as "Sydney Light Rail Network" e.g. maps and timetable whereas L4 is listed as "Parramatta Light Rail Network".

Yes the line is in Sydney but for all intents and purposes officially it is not part of Sydney Light Rail network.

The first sentence mentioning L4 being part of the Sydney light rail network is factually incorrect.

Also Parramatta light rail isn't branded differently (as the revert suggests) it is the same branding (Light rail) and integrated ticketing similar to Newcastle. The only difference is the network name rather than any branding.

Until tfnsw changes their documentation to integrate Sydney and Parramatta light rail networks officially Sydney has two different light rail networks under integrated livery, branding and ticketing.

If we want to keep L4 on this line references to the Sydney Light Rail network should be changed to Light Rail in Sydney like the article title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.46.181 (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think context and capitalisation matter here. Yes, the line is not part of the Sydney Light Rail network, but it is part of Sydney's light rail network. Will Thorpe (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but that's a bit confusing. Firstly that's what I wrote in the Parramatta light rail page that it is not part of the
Whilst the grammar was not good some other Wikipedians came to help fix it up for me.
I would suggest changing "Sydney light rail network" to "light rail in Sydney" to avoid confusion. C
Even changing it to Sydney's light rail network if you would would be better and less confusing.
I get that previously it was only Sydney light rail network and the Parramatta one is quite new - but we are far from the only city to have two different separate networks.
For example see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Barcelona for how they do it there - they reference that it's two different networks servicing a single city under integrated fares - pretty similar to our current situation.
I'm even happy if we get rid of the network together and just list the lines of light rail in Sydney for a compromise - that way no-one gets confused. After all it's not that important considering it's integrated fares branding and livery a laymam wouldn't even realise it is two different networks. 203.158.46.181 (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response came out weirdly formatted so I'll repost it. (Can't edit my reply for some reason)
Sure but that's a bit confusing. Firstly that's what I wrote in the Parramatta light rail page that it is not part of the Sydney Light Rail network yet it was stopp reverted.
Whilst the grammar was not good some other Wikipedians came to help fix it up for me.
I would suggest changing "Sydney light rail network" to "light rail in Sydney" to avoid confusion.
Even changing it to Sydney's light rail network (as you mentioned above) would be better and less confusing.
I get that previously it was only Sydney light rail network and the Parramatta one is quite new - but we are far from the only city to have two different separate networks.
For example see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Barcelona for how they do it there - they reference that it's two different networks servicing a single city under integrated fares - pretty similar to our current situation.
I'm even happy if we get rid of the network together and just list the lines of light rail in Sydney for a compromise - that way no-one gets confused. After all it's not that important considering it's integrated fares branding and livery a laymam wouldn't even realise it is two different networks. 203.158.46.181 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look according to tfnsw:
Sydney light rail network (word for word, including non capitalisation) refers to L1-L3 only. Here is my source:
https://transportnsw.info/sydney-lightrail-network-map
Whereas Parramatta light rail network (again as per tfnsw protocol only P in Parramatta is capitalised), again source:
https://transportnsw.info/sites/default/files/document/2024/08/Parramatta-Light-Rail-network-map.pdf
further source https://transportnsw.info/travel-info/ways-to-get-around/light-rail again no caps for light rail network.
So I stand by my point that the first sentence is factually incorrect.
So yes L4 is part of Sydney's light rail network but it is not part of the Sydney Light Rail network nor the Sydney light rail network. 203.158.46.181 (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Light_rail_in_Sydney&oldid=1264666558"