Talk:Metro Light Rail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Current issues 2 Merge Suggestion (March 2006) 3 Cleanup of MLR stations 4 Current issues section 5 Merge Suggestion (December 2006)

[edit] Current issues

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

[edit] Merge Suggestion (March 2006)

• 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))

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)

• 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

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)

[edit] Cleanup of MLR stations

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)

[edit] Current issues section

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)

[edit] Merge Suggestion (December 2006)

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)

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)

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)

And all but one of them are stubs. Joestella 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You added the stub tags yourself after Rebecca wrote that comment. How is that fair? JROBBO 10:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)