Talk:Sydney Metro Northwest

}

Image copyright problem with File:Castle Hill Station Platform Proposed.jpg

The image File:Castle Hill Station Platform Proposed.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, maybe if it ever becomes reality, a move to an official name might make sense. Mike Cline (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

---

North West railway line, Sydney → North West Rail Link – North West Rail Link is both the official and common name of the project. See [1][2]. North West Rail Link currently redirects here so a simple "move" can't be done.relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC) ShipFan (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. A completely unhelpful suggestion. O, I might support the new words, and the capitals. Not sure. But who in the world could conceivably benefit from the loss of such immediately useful information as "Sydney" currently provides? Think about it. (No, stop. I said think about it. Don't give me legalisms or "primary topic". Think of the readers and their needs, all over the world.)

Noetica^Tea? 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• • "North West railway line, Sydney" fails the Google test. It is not an official or a common name. See WP:COMMONNAME. North West Rail Link beats the current title on the Gnews test by 1630 to 1. ShipFan (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

I agree with the requested move. It should be North West Rail Link or North West Rail Line. They are the two common forms that are used to describe the line in media coverage. I have never heard of the North West railway line, just Google it and see what comes up ... Nomenklatura44 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

North West railway line, Sydney → North West Rail Link – Official name. See http://northwestrail.com.au/‎ which is the official North West Rail Link Website. Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as nominator Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to North West Rail Link. Lose the unnecessary disambiguation. Zarcadia (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I should point out that the requested target was originally North West Rail Link, Sydney, which is why I said to lose the disamgib and bolded my preferred article title. Zarcadia (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 13 July 2015

The following is a closed 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: Moved. Decision made without prejudice as to what the scope of the article should be, since editors seem uncertain as to what that is. The article might need to be expanded in scope, or the title might need to reflect a more restricted topic per comments by Gareth, but we need a dedicated discussion to determine what we want the article to be about. If editors decide that this article should be restricted to a section of the Sydney Metro Northwest, then it should be moved to an appropriate name to preserve the article history, and at least a stub for the full line should created at Sydney Metro Northwest. — kwami (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

North West Rail Link → Sydney Metro Northwest – The official name of this line has changed (again!) – see the official website and this press announcement from Transport for NSW (the latter specifically indicates that the name of this line will be "Sydney Metro Northwest" and ties it to its former name, the "North West Rail Link"). Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support - North West Rail Link is the old name as according to Sydney Metro Northwest Project Overview. The Epping to Chatswood railway line was originally planned to be converted to be part of the North West Rail Link, so technically NWRL and Sydney Metro Northwest are the complete same thing. Marcnut1996 (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Fully agree with the reasons given by Marcnut 1996.Fleet Lists (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sydney Metro Northwest covers the full route from Cudgegong Road to Chatswood, this article only covers the new Cudgegong Road to Epping section. I think the current structure of the Sydney Metro works fairly well:

1. Sydney Metro - overview article for the entire line/system
2. North West Rail Link - new metro specific section
3. Epping to Chatswood railway line - existing line to be converted to metro
4. Sydney Harbour Rail Tunnel - new metro specific section
5. Bankstown railway line - existing line to be converted to metro

In the future, a new article for the entire Cudgegong Road - Bankstown line would be spun off from Sydney Metro once major planning commences on a second metro line - but that could be decades away.

If the scope of this article increases to cover the whole route from Cudgegong Road to Chatswood, what does that mean for the other articles? Should the ECRL article be merged into this one? If so, does that mean the Bankstown line article should be merged with the article for the Chatswood to Sydenham line? This would mean that we would end up with articles for the Sydney Metro Northwest and Sydney Metro City & Southwest. Once the entire line is up and running, this article split would be fairly arbitrary - it would just be based on the date the respective sections of the line opened as metro lines. If we add two new articles for the Sydney Metro Northwest and Sydney Metro City & Southwest to the existing group, then we end up with seven articles with a high degree of overlap between them. I also think those names will fade from view once the metro project has been completed. I accept that the current name of this article is somewhat ambiguous and outdated, but I think we need to keep the existing scope of the article. Perhaps we should redirect Sydney Metro Northwest and Sydney Metro City & Southwest to Sydney Metro and rename North West Rail Link and Sydney Harbour Rail Tunnel to something consistent and clear in scope. Gareth (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gareth makes some valid points. However retaining the name North West Rail Link is in itself confusing as in stations we still say that each station is located on the North West Rail Link (which should be changed) but when looking up the website for the station concerned it states that the station is located on the Sydney Metro Northwest so it is the name currently being used by the powers that be, hence we should have an article by that name. There would be nothing to stop us saying in the article that it specifically covers the section from Epping to Cudgegong Road. If at a later date it is found that the stations from Epping to Chatswwod are also so defined we can expand the coverage by saying that it then also covers that section of the line which was previously known as the Epping to Chatswood railway line and that article would then become obsolete but that is premature now. I note that some changes to the article in the last few days which incorporated information about the Epping to Chatswood section were reverted today and I believe that under the current definition this was the right thing to do.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If you look at earlier Transport for NSW media releases this year, you will realise that they have referred North West Rail Link as the whole section from Cudgegong Road to Chatswood, including the Epping to Chatswood railway line. For example:

1. In this recent media release in June, the length of North West Rail Link is 36km, this is the total of the 23km-long part from Cudegong Road to Epping, and the 13km Epping to Chatswood railway line.
2. In this media release in May, this quote "From the end of the project (NWRL) at Chatswood" meant that the entire North West Rail Link project is the whole portion from Cudgegong Road to Chatswood.

In addition, this older NWRL map states that the whole section from Cudgegong Road to Chatswood is part of the NWRL. So in conclusion, we have totally misunderstood what North West Rail Link is. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that we've totally misunderstood what the NWRL is - the government changed the meaning of the name as it changed the scope of the project. This archived page describes the project as an extension of the CityRail network between Epping and Rouse Hill. The article reflects the former scope of the project - probably due to the existence of the separate ECRL article and the fact that this article is poorly maintained.

To expand on my previous post, I think this article should be renamed Cudgegong Road to Epping metro line and Sydney Harbour Rail Tunnel renamed Chatswood to Sydenham metro line. This would provide consistent article titles for both projects, avoid the ambiguity associated with the government's official names and give the latter article a title commensurate with the project's true scope. Gareth (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per the nom and the fact that the name is ambigious. Based on the title alone, I thought this was related to the North West of England. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• In the interest of full disclosure, it may be that the "North West Rail Link" actually comprises just the "new" (tunneled) rail route of the entire "Sydney Metro Northwest" line, in which case a separate article may be justified. But that's partially what this discussion is meant to figure out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sydney Metro Northwest. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hillsnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/north-west-rail-link-dont-give-false-expectations/2349337.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://northwestrail.com.au/project/photos/1?photo_id=553.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hi, I took it upon myself to clean up the 'criticism' section of this article. I hope that's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.3.204 (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The future of this article

I've started a discussion. Gareth (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

For discussion see Talk:Sydney_Metro#Structure_of_Sydney_Metro_articles_(after_the_metro_opens) - same as link in previous paragraph. Fleet Lists (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)