Talk:CBD and South East Light Rail

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

Criticisms[edit]

Some comments on January 2015 edit-warring over the inclusion or not of the "Criticism" section:

So, I have re-inserted a very short Criticism section, citing Sydney Morning Herald articles. Discussion is invited ... Mitch Ames (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC) This approach is supported.Fleet Lists (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but at a bare minimum it also needs to include who the criticism is coming from. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite easy for anyone to balance the criticisms with positives. The light rail website http://www.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/sydney-light-rail claims many positives:

  • The expansion of light rail will transform Sydney and provide a step change in our city’s public transport capability, reliability and capacity. A step change in the capacity of the transport system is required to address these problems and facilitate economic growth. Light rail has been identified as the best option to achieve this.
  • The CBD and South East Light Rail will deliver frequent, fast, reliable public services between the CBD, Central and major destinations in the south east including Moore Park and University of NSW.
  • Light rail will have the potential to add high capacity special event services for major events. Customers travelling to the Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney Football Stadium and the Entertainment Quarter can expect a highly reliable "turn up and go” service from Central Station.
  • Light rail vehicles on this route will be modern, accessible, air-conditioned and comfortable.
  • A major element of the CBD and South East Light Rail project is the creation of a new Pedestrian Zone on George Street.
  • A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of the CBD and South East Light Rail has identified almost $4 billion worth of benefits to be generated by the project.

The majority of the economic benefits ($2.2 billion, or 57 per cent) result from public transport benefits related to faster, more comfortable, more reliable journeys.

Additionally, the light rail project is expected to provide:

  • Road users with benefits worth $264 million from decongestion, operating savings and road safety improvements.
  • Journey time savings and amenity improvements worth an estimated $333 million for pedestrians.
  • Around $707 million in public transport operational savings, including increased revenues, reduced bus operating costs and efficiencies from integrating with the existing IWLR.
  • Environmental and social benefits worth $308 million, including a reduction in air and noise pollution, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in health.
  • Wider economic benefits worth $222 million, including the sustainability benefits associated with improved urban renewal opportunities.
  • By creating more sustainable transport choices and development opportunities, the expansion of the light rail network will promote a more sustainable future for Sydney.

Jswd (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the problems with your edit. It is a long, unsourced and generally questionable list, and criticism sections are specifically discouraged on Wikipedia. This doesn't change if you add puffery for the project. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"criticism sections are specifically discouraged on Wikipedia"
@Frickeg: said something very similar in this edit summary. Could one of you please quote and/or link to the specific text and the relevant policy or guideline. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it might be an essay, but WP:CRITICISM outlines very well the reasons we should avoid "criticism" sections. Any criticisms should be worked into more general sections. In this case I see no reason why both support and opposition should not be covered in a single "Reception" section, but the laundry list above is very much over-exhaustive and we should only use those that are discussed in multiple reliable sources. Frickeg (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on February 2015 edit-warring: This and any page is supposed to represent a balanced presentation of a topic - not just the positives. The CBD & South East Light Rail Modifications Report 1 December 2014 was required to be released, put on public display and public submissions called for as the 10 changes were EACH deemed significant and unable to be waved through unlike over 100 earlier project variations.

  • Changing information that is accurate, concise and not misleading - is not acceptable. Simply copying what a glossy brochure put out in spin terms does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia (such as Gareth's changes to the 20 bus routes to be eliminated between Circular Quay/Central and Kingsford/Randwick).
  • Constantly deleting relevant material because it is not a positive for a project shows bias and is directly in conflict with Wikipedia policy.
  • Any person who is a paid employee or consultant to the project is barred from editing due to conflict of interest. Similarly so are workers for Political Parties. This should bar at least one of the frequent deleters if not two. A giveaway is that one of the frequent deleters' main contribution to Wikipedia has been around 40 favourable bios of Liberal/NP/CP politicians as well as a handful of bios about ALP politicians that either crossed sides to vote with the Liberal Party or were tainted with corruption allegations.
  • Equally damaging to their credibility is the involvement with the deletion of the page "Captain's Call" which detailed the Prime Minister's self-referenced solo decisions.
  • Attempts to talk with the deleters have not been responded to which also suggests bias/conflict of interest. A M R Sydney (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think their is any real evidence of any contributing editors running political interference, article appears to be an unbiased account of the project to date. While it is fair to mention the shortcomings of the project, we need to avoid all the NIMBY stuff that inevitably surfaces during the construction of infrastructure, and likewise comments of the pro-lobby talking it up.
That said, the article seems to be going down the path of recording what was originally proposed, then changed and then changed again. Understandable as it evolves, but at some point the article will need to be rewritten to reflect what actually is happening rather than what was going to happen, but didn't. Mo7838 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholesale deletions of thousands of characters with no explanation or an explanation that bears no resemblance to the deletion made, repeated deletion of any references to original project official public reports that disprove claims made (& recorded in the article) as well as (for some of the repeat deleters since 2013) clear bias shown in only other edits made elsewhere on Wikipedia favourable to one political party and negative to the opposing party - is prima facie evidence of linkage and bias.
  • I do agree that the section needs reworking and perhaps should be divided up in a similar fashion to "Bus Changes"A M R Sydney (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Construction section is now suffering from information overload and excessive detail and needs a major reworking. It needs to be rewritten to reflect what is going to happen, not what was stated, but is now incorrect. Quoting cites that contradict one another with soundbites is of no value and just bamboozles. Likewise endless statistics.
Politicians often tell porky pies, are economical with the truth or manipulate facts to their advantage...everybody is across that, so need to go on about it here. Ironically it appears that a newly arrived editor pointing the figure at other editors for having political agendas, is the one introducing such material to an article that was reasonably free of it. Mo7838 (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information that was provided previously (that I corrected or am attempting to correct) was false and pure spin not substance. Accuracy is supposed to be the aim for any page on Wikipedia. Identifying a linkage to a political bias/connection is to attempt to provide some support to refute deletions made by said individuals (Drovers Wife for example - see Captain's Calls page deletion for another case unconnected with myself).
  • The aim of the Wikipedia is to provide a balanced factual information sourced from accurate/reliable citatons not reproduce false material produced by any organisation.
  • The material I have introduced is mostly taken from the actual TfNSW or Dept of Planning & Environment documents and is used to replace the news articles based on straight copying of media releases that have no factual basis to the claims made. That would appear to be in agreement with your point on 'sound bites' which have zero substantiation.A M R Sydney (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia prefers and places more value on secondary sources over primary documents. You may want to familiarise yourself with WP:SECONDARY. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference numbers[edit]

The article currently includes - under Design - "All bus services currently on George St will either terminate at Central Station or divert to Elizabeth St,[8][12]", where the numbers in square brackets at the end are not actual references, just numbers in brackets. It looks like it was copied here from a previous version, without formatting. @A M R Sydny:, perhaps you could re-insert the correct references. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other similar instances, eg "Initially, double length platforms were to be provided at the Central Station and Moore Park stops.[12] These were no longer feasible with the increase of the tram length to 67m.[14]" Mitch Ames (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that other formatting has been lost, eg my addition of {{convert}} here. Would editors please copy from the "edit" text, not the "displayed" text, when restoring text from previous versions. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and added back some of the citations that did not copy correctly. I had copied as you guessed from the "displayed" as I had ass/u/me'd that you could not edit an old version. Thanks for the tip.

Is there an easy way to cite the same source repeatedly other than using copy/paste? Often the source is cited in a different section so it is not so straight forward to copy/paste. Is there a short form way to use a previous reference?

Thanks for your time and effort.A M R Sydney (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it is strongly recommended that the full details of a reference NOT be repeated - this is achieved by <ref name=abc> where abc can be any value. On second or subsequent uses of the same reference, define it as <ref name=abc/> without the rest and each of such uses will be allocated the same reference number. In fact a bot (Yobot) has gone through the article tonight and combined a number of your references in such a way. I have suppressed the creation of references on this post. Fleet Lists (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFNAME has the details on using a source more than once. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Order 52[edit]

On 8 May 2014 the New South Wales Legislative Council voted for a Standing Order 52 "call for papers" compelling the State Government to produce all documents and recorded communications relating to the project. Detailed financial modelling, analysis, feasibility studies and detailed cost/benefit material was not released. A second Standing Order 52 "call for papers" was lodged on 19 November 2014 specifically referencing these documents.CBD and South East Light Rail The Government's response on 3 December 2014 was to declare that none of the documents existed.Letter 3 December 2014

  • This paragraph adds nothing to the article. It turned out to be a wild goose chase, nothing came out of it, so best to leave out. Obviously there are politics at play as with all major infrastructure projects, but Its nitty griity, go nowhere stuff like this that bogs the article down and will ultimately be need to be written out. A collection of 'nothing to see here' letters from departments adds no value.
The article needs to focus on what has, or based on statements made from decision makers, is likely to happen. Mo7838 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing when I read the article text. Everything asked for was provided. What's the issue? WWGB (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - the section is unnecessary.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was the issue none of the major document requested in the 1st call for papers was ever provided. There were two boxes that only MPs could look at and they were confidential. Once they looked at them they could not relay the contents to the public other than by issuing a 2nd call for papers to show up that the Govt was effectively denying the existence or refusing to provide the underlying assumptions, business case, traffic modelling, cost/benefit analysis, capacity modelling for the project. To confirm what I am saying is correct, here is the link to the index of the documents produced, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/lc/lctabdoc.nsf/cccc870c6126b1b6ca2571ee000318a4/6e2b81f5c474172fca257cee0023c16a?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,light*,rail* there is a pdf shown at the bottom of the page which is the index to the papers. I went through all the boxes after going through the index in the hope it was just a mistake of indexing. None of the documents were in the public boxes. In the Legislative Council during the 2nd call several upper house MPs stated that none of the documents were contained in the 'MP only boxes'.
  • BTW - I am and have never been a member of any political party - I am a wholesale fund manager who has invested in or rejected infrastructure projects since 1986. When the project was first mooted and some info put in writing I contact TfNSW and asked for clarification of some apparently incorrect numbers they put out. I'm still waiting over two years later for explanation of the factually incorrect numbers.
  • The Govt is putting out much spin and I am attempting to provide a neutral POV balancing the misleading claims with factual, verifiable information. For example there is a TfNSW document out, a glossy, called Summary of Business Case. To create a summary you need to first have a business case. The Dec 3 response denies the existence of one.
  • source Final SSI 6042 MOD 1 Secretary's Assessment Report_Feb 2015.pdf (5.536 MB)

The assessment undertaken by TfNSW based the capacity of the light rail service on the provision of up to 8,620 passengers per hour as part of normal operations in future years"

  • Modification Report Dec 2014

In these future operations (at least 10 years after opening) during the peak hour there is potential capacity to increase to enable the movement of up to 8,620 passengers per hour (18.5 LRVs per hour each carrying up to 466 passengers). This would represent an increase of approximately 20 per cent in peak capacity against the approved project which would have enabled the movement of up to 7,200 passengers (24 LRVs per hour each carrying up to 300 passengers).

  • vs 23 February 2015 media release by Gladys Berejeklian

Ms Berejiklian said the CBD and South East Light Rail network will transform public transport in Sydney by providing modern and reliable services for customers, boosting the economy and cutting crippling congestion in the city. “The green light from planning means we can roll out longer light rail vehicles with more seats for customers and 50 per cent more capacity, allowing us to move up to 13,500 passengers every hour,” Ms Berejiklian said

  • = A false statement in direct conflict with report she is referring to and the approval report she also refers to
  • This action by the bureaucrats is very similar to what the State Auditor General criticised harshly in the Investigation into the WestConnex Project, released in Dec 2014. Claims made with no substantiation provided nor independent verification sought. I had a meeting with the WestConnex team in Aug 2014 and if you look at their web site they have scheduled an investigation into the CSELR as a response to the material I provided them. CBD and South East Light Rail Business Case Study (pdf ...

www.transport.nsw.gov.au/.../131114-CSELR-Business-Case-Summary-... Nov 3, 2013 - TFNSW CSELR BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY. The NSW Government is committed to providing a first class, integrated public transport network ...

  • How would you suggest this apparently deliberate hiding of key information on a $2.1bn+ project and its impact on the community be discussed?A M R Sydney (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this is absolute original research and thus not allowed on Wikipedia. It can go in the article when reliable sources take this as a notable issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day the article is about reporting citeable facts, not interpreting the motivations of the government. If it turned into a major scandal, then yes there would be a strong case to include, but to date it has drawn a blank.
The government may be obfuscating or being economical with the truth, but until such time as it is reported by credible independent sources there is no place for it here. Ironically it is the editor who is pointing the finger at other for being 'apparent political apparatchiks' [1] that is introducing politics to the article, given his stated grievances with parts of the project. The editor has some concerns with the project and has not been able to gain a satisfactory answer from TfNSW, which is fine, but Wiki isn't the forum to name and shame to try and get an answer. The editor should also factor in whether he/she has a conflict of interest given their stated involvement in the subject article.
This is going to be a complex project. History tells us that there will very likely be delays, cost over runs and other problems. There is no problem in reporting these, but it needs to be done in an objective, big picture manner, we don't need to know that a station was moved 2 metres to the left to avoid a manhole, or every time there is a Health & Safety breach etc. Mo7838 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Drovers Wife - None of this is original research - it consists of TfNSW and Dept of Planning and Environment documents. So you agree it can go in the article then as it is citable sources not original research. Thank you. Please obey wikipedia rules/A M R Sydney (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Mo7838 - A call for Papers by a house of Parliament is not a small event comparable to moving a station 2m to the left to avoid a manhole. You are exhibiting bias.A M R Sydney (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what did this event produce, a smoking gun? No, a series of 'nothing in our files' replies. Something more substantial is going to need to surface for this to fly. Mo7838 (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Trams 30 vs 60[edit]

While the plan is that the trams will operate in pairs, they will actually be individual sets and as operational needs dictate are likely to operate as single units from time to time. It's a bit like the Sydney Trains T sets, while they are rostered to operate in pairs, they are capable of operating individually, so we describe them as 100 4-car sets rather than 50 8-car sets. Would be different if the inside cabs (i.e. in sections 5 & 6) were disabled preventing their use in traffic as single sets, but to date no evidence has come to light that this will be the case. Mindavale (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on CBD and South East Light Rail. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of bus routes[edit]

I recently removed content on 12 April relating to a list of bus route changes which I don't feel should belong in the article. This is an overly detailed list and doesn't align with the standard of other mass transit articles such as Crossrail or the City Rail Link. There isn't even a detailed list of bus routes in Sydney for that matter. In addition to this, the list is sourced by a Wayback Machine reference that leads to a pdf document which I have studied but haven't been able to correlated with the content supplied. In summary, it's akin to fancruft.

The edit was removed twice by user @Teraplane then once more by @Pony098, two low level users. In an edit summary Teraplane mentioned As a Sydney resident and user of these bus services, I find the list of proposed route changes very relevant to this article. The information impacts many commuters and is not easily obtainable from other sources. Struggle to see how you can have much understanding of or connections to this topic if you are in New Zealand. This is a clear act of not showing good faith as they feel their knowledge of the geographical area as some kind of battleground, they've clashed with me on other occasions as well (see [2]). To avoid an edit war situation I am bringing forth this for prompt discussion here. Ajf773 (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'low level user', one who has made a small number of edits? So a 'high level user' is some how better?? You have made thousands of edits but they are mostly unilateral deletions, with no dialog via talk pages. It's an unusual pattern of activity and not the more collaborative and slower approach that most editors seem to be able to follow.

There isn't even a detailed list of bus routes in Sydney for that matter. Having nominated similar articles in Newcastle and London for deletion, are you now advocating the creation of a Bus routes in Sydney article? ... leads to a pdf document which I have studied but haven't been able to correlated with the content supplied. Not too hard it would appear, try pages 130/131.
What happens when the line opens will in parts be different based on some incremental changes that have already occurred, but as an indicator to what changes were proposed, existing text is fine, so an Oppose. Ponyo98 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first question, no I am not advocating for a List of Buses in Sydney article, I don't know where you came up with that. Secondly, this is a light rail article not a bus route article. If people wanted to know which bus routes are affected, they could just read the link provided in the short summary. Wikipedia is not a running source of bus route alteration news, that is for the transport authority in charge (in this case Transport for NSW). The detailed list is not needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then what point were you trying to make with: There isn't even a detailed list of bus routes in Sydney for that matter? Agree the article shouldn't be a source of bus route alteration news, and it isn't. There have been some changes to some of the routes since 2013, but this was deemed immaterial and later stripped out. Ponyo98 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this is trivial information that does not require the amount of detail that has been included in the article. Ajf773 (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. Seeing that the text has stood unchallenged for a number of years, so far it appears you are in the minority. Hopefully we will find out one way or the other as part of this discussion process. Ponyo98 (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So let's hear from some other users, ideally some with more experience than 74 edits. Ajf773 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to equate quantity with quality. A user may have only done a small number of edit, but if they are relevant and informed it is more valuable then hundreds of 'drive by deletions' Teraplane (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want to add anything relevant to this discussion? Ajf773 (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
As a user of these bus services, and a long term resident of Sydney, it's axiomatic I have good knowledge of the topic and am a consumer of this information. Of course anyone can edit any page but without first hand experience of the topic, or an effort to understand it, the quality of that edit is diminished.
You appear to be deleting content from hundreds of pages per month and timestamps frequently show very short edit durations, often a page every minute or so. This indicates a mostly cursory and scatter gun approach to editing. And not the extra level of activity needed as pointed out above.
You state this is an overly detailed list of bus routes, yet, it is only a table of 20 rows from a page of 71 kBytes. It is also only displayed via a 'show' button, so there is in fact no space overhead from the initial page view, but detail is there for those who want to drill down.
Your pejorative criticism of this as 'fancraft' is a gross assumption. It's hard to tell if you think people who revert your deletions are something like train spotters, or you simply can't find a more factual basis for criticism. I'm just a commuter who has found pertinent information on this page. So naturally, when it is summarily deleted with no prior discussion on talk, I feel the need to correct this. Teraplane (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of content - The list of bus routes to be modified is part of the project. It may be outdated, but it was a concept that was came up by the government. Since those proposed changes are directly affected by this project, these bus routes should remain in this article. Anything, whether good or bad or not light rail, that is directly impacted or influenced by this project should be included in this wikipedia article. It is not trivial in my opinion. Sidenote: I think ignoring feedbacks from any user, whether they have made many edits or not is unfair. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I am going to ping some other experienced users who are involved in Sydney's transport. That would probably solve the "I do not trust users with few edits" issue. @Moa999, Fleet Lists, and Gareth: Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Fleet Lists is on holiday and Gareth has retired from Wikipedia. Teraplane (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of content - I don't think it's fancruft. It's important to any new person's understanding of the likely impact of the introduction of Light Rail. The list is static, it is based on a government announcement, and i suspect won't alter until final plans are announced near the (eventual) opening date as per bus changed for Sydney Metro Northwest. It's also consistent with including bus route connections on individual Sydney Railway stations for example Moa999 (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to the removal. The bus details are an integral part of the development of the light rail and hence should be retained in this article.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image of L2 logo in SVG and PNG formats[edit]

@PhilipTerryGraham and Sreejithk2000: Howdy all. Are we able to source an 'approved' version of the L2 logo for use on this page and elsewhere, as currently exists with the L1 logo? Cheers Rangasyd (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does File:TRAM - Alicante Logo-L2.svg work for you? --Sreejith K (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Randwick and Kingsford Lines[edit]

@Caen5120:@JivanZa:@PhilipTerryGraham:@Marcnut1996:Yesterday this article was renamed to Randwick and Kingsford Lines by another editor of which I was very supportive and assisted by changing a number of templates and also changing the name in a number of articles which still needed updating in any case for the opening of this light rail services. In the case of the Dulwich Hill Line which is the equivalent of this article for the other light rail service. When that was created it was decided that there would only be one article to cover both the line and the services on the line. Hence it is believed that as normal procedure this article should be renamed to the Lines name so that we will have similar names for all light rail lines in Sydney. These names are by which both the line and services will be known to potential users who will read the article and not the current name which was only used during the development stages of the project. Then today another editor reverted all the work done, back to the name it has now. It is strongly recommended that the rename which took place yesterday should again proceed.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fleet Lists: I've gone ahead and made a proper requested move discussion below. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 April 2020[edit]

CBD and South East Light Rail → Randwick and Kingsford Lines – Move sponsored by JivanZa and Fleet Lists. They can express their opinions below; this is a neutral discussion opener. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 05:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:This should not be relisted but should be closed - see comments on 11 April 2020 below. The replacement move has now been approved and has taken place.Fleet Lists (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The physical railway line is called the "CBD and South East Light Rail". The service that operates on the line are the "L2 Randwick Line" and "L3 Kingsford Line". This article is about the physical railway line. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PhilipTerryGraham. Caen5120 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The L1 Dulwich Hill Line article is titled “Dulwich Hill Line”. Either title this article with the same consistency to something similar or rename the other article to meet the consistency of this article’s title. Fork99 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fork99: In this case, the physical railway line's article is the Sydney Freight Network, as the L1 service runs on the Rozelle / Darling Harbour branch of the railway. The Dulwich Hill Line article would be best suited as one that details the L1 service rather than the physical railway it runs on. Fun fact: in 2015, I actually started trying to change the scope of the article into one about the Rozelle / Darling Harbour branch of the goods railway years ago in a series of bold edits, but they were vetoed by Mo7838 a.k.a. D47817 – for the reason I had just stated and now believe in – before I could continue with the rest of the article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: I think technically, the Sydney Freight Network doesn’t actually cover the L1 Line around the part of the line that loops around Belmore Park into Central and maybe the on-street section (I’m not sure), as that was built for and after the conversion to passenger light rail. If this article (which describes both the service and physical line) continues to be called CBD and South East Light Rail, then I think it would make sense to rename the other article to Inner West Light Rail (which covers a bit of both service and physical line). Fork99 (talk) Fork99 (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fork99: No, it was actually the railway from the Powerhouse Museum to Central via Hay Street that was built in the 1990s. The railway through Pyrmont, through Darling Harbour, and all the way to Central via a stretch of railway that still exists underneath Railway Square, were all part of the original Rozelle / Darling Harbour goods line when it originally closed for operations. Nonetheless, Fleet Lists has indicated that there is now some support for the ideas I had years ago that were wholly rejected, so I'd much rather jump back on that bandwagon if I can! Haha! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham:My main aim for the name change was to get consistency between the names for the L1 article now called Dulwich Hill Line and this article. As the consensus appears to be that the name here should not be changed, I would then suggest that the L1 article should be changed to Inner West Light Rail which currently redirects to Dulwich Hill Line, as mentioned by Fork99. This may also overcome some objections by Marcnut1996. Fleet Lists (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would also bring it into line with the Newcastle Light Rail article.Fleet Lists (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fleet Lists: I'd definitely be supportive of a change in scope for the Dulwich Hill Line article to one about the physical railway. If a requested move proposal pops up on that article's talk page in the event this one fails, be sure to ping me! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the L2 and L3 combined is known as CBD and South East Light Rail. Personally, I do not like the Dulwich Hill Line name as the name of the passenger service may always change, but the physical railway line of Inner West Light Rail is usually always the same. Marcnut1996 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, do it like Sydney Metro Northwest and Metro North West Line, one for the physical line and project, one for the passenger service. In the case for L2 and L3, this page should remain CBD & South East Light Rail as it focuses on the project, and information about L2 and L3 can either be separate articles or in Light rail in Sydney. Marcnut1996 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcnut1996: Considering the "Operation" section of this article currently consists four sentences, I highly doubt there'd be enough content to warrant a split for this article. People have been itching to merge Metro North West Line back into Sydney Metro as it is, so I don't have high hopes for a similarly-sized article about these two services. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CBD_and_South_East_Light_Rail&oldid=1206586021"