Talk:Gawler line

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

Requested move[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed 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.


Gawler railway line, Adelaide → Gawler Central railway line, Adelaide — It is referred to by the operators as both Noarlunga line and Noarlunga Centre line, likewise the Gawler Line as Gawler Central line. This move is to standardise how Adelaide's rail lines are referred to. Conversely, Noarlunga Centre railway line, Adelaide can be moved to Noarlunga railway line, Adelaide. AtD 12:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes[edit]

Survey - Oppose votes[edit]

  1. Oppose I believe the article should refer to the town/suburb the line goes to rather than the name of the last station. (I therefore would support moving Noarlunga Centre Line to Noarlunga Line.GK1 08:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with that is there is no suburb called Tonsley, thus the Tonsley line would have to break that convention.--AtD 09:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem also in that there is no single suburb called Noarlunga.--cj | talk 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Adelaide Metro refer to the Gawler Train [1] on the Gawler Railway Line [2]. "Oppose struck as I would have voted oppose until I noticed my second reference also has "Gawler Central Railway Line" --Scott Davis Talk 13:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:

Given that either form could be correct, I suggest that we err on the side of common usage and adopt simply "Noarlunga" and "Gawler".--cj | talk 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Gawler Central/Gawler Line issue[edit]

I believe that this article should be renamed Gawler Central Line. TransAdelaide offers services during peak times which do not stop at Gawler Central the final stop but terminate at Gawler and return to Adelaide. To avoid confusion between the 2 services the line should be renamed Gawler Central. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standspace (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move #2[edit]

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 move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gawler railway line, Adelaide → Gawler Central railway line, Adelaide — The line is referred to by the operator as the Gawler Central line as it terminates at Gawler Central Station, which is in the suburb of Gawler. The other line in Adelaide with a similar name has an article titled Noarlunga Centre railway line, Adelaide instead of just "Noarlunga railway line, Adelaide" I should note. Second time a move has been proposed (see above). —Somebody in the WWW (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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 naming conventions.
  • Support - I'm happy with this so long as naming conventions are supported. While we're at it, can we get rid of the "X Interchange, Adelaide" and use the proper railway station convention. TheInterchanges primarily are railway stations (and were originally built as such), so they should reflect that - no other Australian city calls their interchanges with different conventions. JRG (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the archived discussion above. --AtD (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gawler Central railway line. 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) 15:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 July 2017[edit]

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: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gawler Central railway line → Gawler railway line – Adelaide Metro had reverted the service name back to the simpler "Gawler line" name a while back. Pinging User:Nick Mitchell 98 and User:ScottDavis, the two last editors on the article. (Source) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons stated above. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 01:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection from me. I usually call it the Gawler Railway Line anyway (and if I catch a train, it's generally on that line). --Scott Davis Talk 00:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment: What a shame the article name was changed! There seems to be no evidence that the common name ever changed, only the official name. This is of course one of the reasons we use common names rather than slavishly following the whims of bureaucracy, see wp:official names#Rationale. At least, we have now removed the unnecessary disambiguation. Suggest we stick to WP:AT from now on. Andrewa (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2017 (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.

Line guide[edit]

I have been working on the Gawler railway line, and more recently, the Outer Harbor railway line too. I liked the line guide that I saw on the latter site, in that it presents a sortable table of details about each station on the line. I have worked to replicate that on this page too (and to synchronise the formatting on both), but due to coding fatigue, I have not been able to finish it yet (since adding an image, or wiki-coding a bus route's colour is quite time consuming). Any help adding to it or tidying it would be appreciated.Thanks! JabberJawJAPAN talk 04:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - have added all available images and sourced a few new ones for stations without images (eg, Kudla, Elizabeth South). That leaves 6 stations sans images...JabberJawJAPAN talk 02:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK - am doing the buses now too. JabberJawJAPAN talk 03:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Gallery"[edit]

A section called "gallery" is very unlikely to be encyclopaedic. Images illustrate articles, and thus should be interspersed throughout. An arbitrary collection of them at the end is very rarely of encyclopaedic value. Wikimedia Commons is the place to put such collections of images. See the image use guidelines. Rbka (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello - and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a new editor here, I would like to remind you that the dispute here is over the inclusion of a gallery in this article, and whether or not a gallery is justified. Consequently, edits/changes should not be made (during discussions) that favour/bias one position until a consensus is reached. Further, deletion of the individual images within the gallery as well, without any further explanation of why each image is also unencyclopaedic is (currently) beyond the scope of this discussion. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to have offered any argument here. If you believe that the following text somehow does not apply to you or to this article, please explain why.Rbka (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashion for an example of a good use of galleries.
However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons}}, {{Commons-inline}}, or {{Commons category}} templates. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.
Agree a gallery is not required, there is enough space to add some images around the prose. I have copied the 4 that were in the gallery section as an example. Bullgold14 (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gawler railway line. 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) 16:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2023[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– The current titles are longer than they have to be and are not in line with WP:CONCISE. Sources generally do not call these by their current names either. The Adelaide Metro network map calls these lines the "Gawler line", "Grange line", etc, as shown by [3]. The Adelaide Metro timetables simply calls each line by its terminus name, such as "Gawler Central", "Outer Harbor & Grange", completely omitting "railway line", as shown by [4] [5] [6] [7]. Other sources are mixed, but mostly do not use the term "railway line", instead opting for "line" or "rail line" or "train line". Examples from the Gawler line are below, but the same applies to the other lines too:

Seeing as there is no consistency in how these lines are called, I propose that we just go for the most concise page titles. This would also put these lines in line with Transperth lines (which were moved at Talk:Joondalup line#Requested move 12 December 2021) and Metro Trains Melbourne lines (which were moved at Talk:Glen Waverley line#Requested move 10 August 2023 among other places). Steelkamp (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Common sense concise move per nom. I previously supported the mentioned similar moves for Perth and Melbourne as well. Thanks for doing this! Fork99 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With a caveat I just realised: Should the Seaford line be disambiguated because of the existence of Seaford branch line in the UK? Or do you think hatnotes are sufficient? Fork99 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and consistency with other Australian city services. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 12:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME Melbourne and Sydney have already fully been moved as well NotOrrio (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small correction for Sydney, for example: Bankstown Line and Bankstown railway line are two separate articles, one on the service and one for the railway line. Perth has already been fully moved a while ago is what you're after :) Fork99 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relisting to see if there could be a clearer consensus on the Seaford line issue mentioned above. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gawler_line&oldid=1202229305"