Does anyone else think that the stopping pattern info on all these CityRail line pages looks too directory like and un-encyclopedic? Its just a regirgitation from the Cityrail timetable. It's very transient and liable to change I can't imagine anyone finding it constructive. Will it all be ammended with the next timetable re-write?Quaidy 10:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. While some have suggested that the stopping patterns show the relative importance of the stations, I think this could be better achieved in the text of the article. Joestella 12:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Quaidy, it's not just about what you think. It is not "directory-like" or "unencyclopedic" - they are your own opinion, and those terms are yet to be defined by anyone on here - I have asked people to provide a rationale for that being as such, and no one has answered that. The next timetable update will include the Epping to Chatswood Line, which will completely change the makeup of the line - but the line's patterns haven't changed for some years now, apart from the fact that some peak hour trains used to stop at Meadowbank instead of West Ryde. I'm happy to change it though to something more resembling the Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney article, which has opening dates and distance sections instead of the stopping pattern buttons - although it should be noted that when I took them out of that article people asked for them to be replaced... I can't win. How about we stop whinging and get on with improving the article... JROBBO 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I know its just what I think- thats why it's on the discussion page! I just think the info would read better in text rather than a large table. Opinions are still allowed last time I checked.Quaidy 10:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
After being accused of being a vandal, I thought I'd raise this here. I think that the large station table on this and other Cityrail pages is too big and directory like for an encyclopaedia page. Would anyone read it? It seems a rehash of information that could easily be found on the official Cityrail website. Thoughts (with civility please)? Endarrt 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed some links to this article are styled red and bold. I assume it's because CityRail colours this line red on maps; however, it's confusing as they look like Wiki Redlinks. I'd like them set back to the default link colour for clarity. Your thoughts? --Brenotalk 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I caught a M set train the other day on the Northern line Does this type of train need to be added to the fleet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefmanzzz (talk • contribs) 12:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
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: page not moved: no concensus in over 5 weeks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The request above was refactored by User:Amakuru as a request affecting all the CityRail lines rather than just this one, as it wouldn't be logical to create an inconsistency even if the original request was held to be valid. The original move request was:
Oppose. Its a railway line, and it's in Sydney, so the change seems unnecessary. All of the other lines in Sydney are named as per this convention. MrHarper (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. In Australia, locality names have an (almost de facto) compulsory disambiguation using the comma. As a reasonable extension of that railway stations also use the comma disambiguation where required, so the convention now used to so name a modest number of railway lines would seem the best and avoids confusion. All Australian lines requiring dab now use the comma except for a couple in WA (Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)).
As for Northern Line: I would accept the proposer's rationale as the article is almost wholly about the service rather than a physical line from a to b, but this should be part of a discussion involving a few other articles as well (and perhaps they should begin with CityRail?? that is the name given to the service which links to the relevant more general article on the line. Some redirects and hat notes sorely needed here, but that is another thingCrusoe8181 (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC).
Support - The appendage "railway line" to the CityRail lines seems to be largely a Wikipedia invention. For example "Cumberland railway line" garners only around 51 matches on Google, while "Cumberland Line" garners thousands. Also, from the official site, the above names are the correct ones as defined by the railway itself. As for the comma versus parentheses debate, I would favour the parentheses. While commas are preferred for location specific entities such as Hyde Park, Sydney, a railway line is a city-wide entity rather than something restricted to a single location. Thus, like M1 road (Australia), parentheses seem more appropriate. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Support The use of commas applies to a general area, not a specific location, so that you can further disambiguate. For example, having "York hospital, York, England" as a title would be mess, but "York hospital (York, England)" works better. Ng.j (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't see any justification for a capital "L". Piccadilly line has a small "l". There also seems some confusion as to whether we are talking about rail services which occur over other physical lines (in the case of the Cumberland line) or physical railways, like the North Shore line, where the service using it actually runs over other lines.--Grahame (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The justification is simple: In the case of Piccadilly line, the name is "Piccadilly" while the "line" in Piccadilly line is simply a descriptor. That's how Transport for London use it:. In the CityRail case, the line is actually called "Northern Line" and never just "Northern". Again, that's the usage according to the horse's mouth: . Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Once this is sorted out, the Category:Northern Line stations seems to need renaming as well, since London in England is claiming it for its own, even though this line in Sydney uses the same name. Category names are not supposed to be ambiguous. (they tend to collect articles that don't belong otherwise) 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 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.