Any editor who hasnot nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to thegood article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as agood article. To start the review process, clickstart review and save the page. (See here for thegood article instructions.)
Short description: Suburban rail line in Perth, Western Australia
Yanchep line is within the scope ofWikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofAustralia andAustralia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit theproject page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide torail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion. See also:WikiProject Trains to do list and theTrains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
As a merge proposal discussion was not opened on the talk page, I will commence it here.
Oppose The NSTS article is the subject of major research which is currently underway. Those who are participants in theWP:WA project are aware of this. The NSTS article will have significant information relating to the development of the line through history from it's first known confirmed suggestion of it (currently found to be 1982 thanks to some serious diving through the State Archives) right through to development and eventual opening. The subject matter of the two articles is significantly different, as one documents massive history while the other deals with the operational line. As already done, there is a more info link within theJoondalup railway line, Perth article which points to the NSTS article.Thewinchester(talk)16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to therequest page for whitelisting.If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at theblacklist request page.If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at therequest page on meta.When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
I have just added archive links to one external link onJoondalup railway line. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
What does the graph trying to present here? The table accurately shows the annual change in percentage, and that graph deemed to be useless. –McVahl (talk)02:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article uses Fremantle train line and Fremantle rail line interchangeably:[18]
X Line and X line seem to be in equal use, judging by[19][20][21]
X railway line or X Railway Line seems to be quite rare, as shown by[22],[23], and[24].
Also, in my experience, having written two Good Articles on stations in Perth (Bayswater railway station, Perth andWarnbro railway station), I find myself truncating X railway line to X line after the first mention, because X line is shorter and more concise.
X Line is the best naming scheme to use. Failing that, X line should be used as it is the second best. The current names are the third best.Steelkamp (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting.FOARP (talk)19:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested technical request (permalink).
Oppose "Fremantle Line" perMOS:CAPS, which requires that the title be written in title case in asubstantial majority of sources if we are to treat it as a proper name. That is clearly not the case here, with numerous sources offering other variants such as "Fremantle line":[25][26][27], "Fremantle train line",[28][29] etc. I'd be happy with moves to "Fremantle line" etc, indeed I thought we had agreed that as a compromise at the WP:RM/TR discussion, but it should not be capitalised. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)08:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Fremantle Line" IS its proper name and perMOS:CAPS it ought to be capitalised. Surely Transperth gets to decide what the name of their stuff is, and they are calling it "Fremantle Line", whether we like it or not.Betterkeks (talk)05:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can call it what they want, of course, and cap it if they want. But WP goes by what independent sources do, perMOS:CAPS; look atbooks andnews and you'll see it most often with lowercase "line".Dicklyon (talk)06:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose caps per "Line" IAWMOS:CAPS andWP:NCCAPS:only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. The operator is not independent. They are not proper names since they are not capped in asubstantial majority of sources. They are also referred to in a variety of ways rather than one consistent form. I see some value in "X railway/train line", even it is subsequently truncated in the article. Both tell us it is about a rail line rather than some other sort of line - but I am not tied to this.Cinderella157 (talk)06:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perMOS:CAPS since nom's evidence shows mixed capitalization in sources, not consistent capitalization as specified in the guideline. Also note that nom's listing of official sources does not show usage in sentences, so does not contribute to the question of whether these are treated as proper names or not. No objection to the lowercase version if it's more common without "railroad" in there.Dicklyon (talk)05:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – it's well-established that "station" and "line" are not capped on en.WP. And the sources would need to be almost unanimous for capping—but they're far from that.Tony(talk)09:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment as a random reader who hasnt gone through the aforementioned wikiproject discussions, Joondalup Line is way ambiguous, Joondalup r(R)ailway Line, or Joondalup Line (railway) is unambiguous. —usernamekiran • sign theguestbook •(talk)15:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The current titles are misleading since the articles are about services, not about railway lines. The railway lines have their own separate articles and it is important to distinguish between these two. Usually the wordline is not capitalised because it's used as a generic term to show that something is a railway line. For the same reasonstation is not capitalised. In some cases the wordLine is used as part of the proper noun for a rail service and because of that is usually capitalised. Unlike with railway lines,Line is a substantial part of the proper name that was chosen for these services. The names could have beenJoondalup Express orJoondalup Train, but they aren't. From a quick Google search it looks like the majority of sources capitalise the wordLine in this context. This is alsoWP:CONSISTENT with several other rail services in Australia such as theNSW TrainLink andSydney Trains services. --PhiH (talk)17:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The distinctions you would make are not being bourn out by the articles - particularlyJoondalup railway line, which makes no clear distinction between the infrastructure and the service using it. PerWikipedia:Search engine test, a Google search is, at best a rough guide that requires further discernment. And in any case, I am seeing inconsistent usage particularly after filtering for independence and reliability perMOS:CAPS/WP:RS. There is also the initial evidence. Regards,Cinderella157 (talk)02:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment - preemptive edits made Editors should be aware that changes to article content have been made that preempt the outcome of this RM (pls see thisedit) While this is perhaps a bit irregular, it is more important that editors looking at these articles are aware that such changes have been made - especially if a review of the content is being used to help form their opinion.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCinderella157 (talk •contribs)
The lead rewrites tried to focus on the service with "X Line" instead of on the railway lines themselves, but left a lot of words about length and route and going underground, etc., that were more about the lines. I tried to fix, restoring the bolded "X railway line" and distinguishng the service a bit. It could use more work.Dicklyon (talk)20:06, 30 November 2021 (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.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove 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. The consensus isn't unanimous. But, while there is a decent argument to be had on the necessity of distinguishing between the services and underlying infrastructure (and which should take precedence), there are clearer and stronger policy backed arguments for moving these articles (i.e.WP:COMMONNAME).Note: The prior RM's opposing comments almost entirely focused onMOS:CAPS, and therefore had no bearing on this discussion.—Coffee //have a ☕️ //beans //09:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion during the last RM mostly focused onMOS:CAPS which was why many opposed the move, though almost no was against the removal of the wordrailway. I personally prefer the variant with a capitalL but I think this is a compromise we can agree on. --PhiH (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting.BD2412T01:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support These articles are primarily about services, not infrastructure. I also agree with PhiH that not capitalising the "L" in the word "Line" found in each of the names of "the things" these articles primarily talk about is a compromise we can agree on.Betterkeks (talk)22:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support X railway line is very rarely used outside Wikipedia. X Line or X line are far more common, as shown here:
[30] Joondalup Line or Joondalup line: 222 results
In the case of the Midland line, Fremantle line and the Armadale line, there is already a separate article on the railway:Eastern Railway (Western Australia) andSouth Western Railway, Western Australia. In the case of the newer lines, the railway can be written about in the article on each service. For example,Airport railway line, Perth is about the service that will run between Claremont station and High Wycombe station. The scope of that article includes the construction of infrastructure required for the operation of that line, including turnbacks at Claremont station and Bayswater station, the removal of a level crossing, and the 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) of new track between Bayswater and High Wycombe. This is much better than having the article solely on the 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) of new track between Bayswater and High Wycombe.
Comment I'm pretty indifferent either way to the naming of these articles but my question is, will you rename the corresponding categories (e.g.Category:Mandurah railway line) as well because it doesn't seem to make much sense to have the parent categories left at a different title. Additionally, what about the individual stations in each of the lines category who all seem to haverailway component in their name (e.g.Aubin Grove railway station)? I think, if you want to overhaul the Perth railway naming convention and can present a reasonable case for doing so you should really go all the way and not just scratch the surface.Calistemon (talk)11:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the categories should be renamed as well at the same time. I'm not sure adding a category to a requested move is something that can be done. Does anyone know the best way to rename the categories as well (if this RM succeeds). With regards to the station names, I think the hurdle of renaming the line articles should be reached first before trying that. Believe me, I want to rename the station articles as well as the line articles.Steelkamp (talk)12:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to renaming the categories. The article titles of railway stations are a completely different thing though. I don't see anything wrong in "Xyz railway station". --PhiH (talk)13:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zedutch: That is not true. Look atNorth Shore & Western Line,Inner West & Leppington Line,Bankstown Line,Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line, etc. Plus, why should naming convention take precedence over the terms that are actually used in the real world. Practically all sources use the formatX Line orX line. When you have less than 10 news items using the current naming convention, and hundreds using the proposed naming convention, then maybe you should sit back and see that it is the naming convention that needs changing and is incorrect. When you haveall official sources usingX Line, notX railway line, then maybe you should sit back and see that it is the naming convention that is wrong and needs changing.Steelkamp (talk)01:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zedutch: In addition to what Steelkamp has already said, these articles aren’t primarily about railway lines but about SERVICES (some of which use multiple, and one uses THREE different railway lines). Yes, the articles talk about the infrastructure both (1) constructed and altered for it (including but not limited to a railway line, and in the case of the Airport line most prominently the two 8-kilometre tunnels) and (2) existing infrastructure constructed for other already existing services, and the services have, sadly, got the word 'Line' in their names, but that is SECONDARY to the primary subject matter of the articles. Insisting these articles follow naming conventions for railway lines would be akin to insisting an article about a hospital follow the conventions for buildings because hospitals are housed in buildings.Betterkeks (talk)02:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. these articles are about physical railway lines firstly and the services that operate on them secondarily, contrary to an earlier assertion. Agree with the suggestion for merging the text on the physical Fremantle and Midland with theEastern Railway and Armadale with theSouth Western as they are about short sections of the same physical railway line and having separate articles covering the same thing iscontent forking. But doesn't apply to the Joondalup and Mandurah articles where only one article is needed to cover both the infrastructure and the services that operate on it. By way of a similar precedent, amerger discussion concluded that a service article (Olympic Park Line) be redirected to a physical line article (Olympic Park railway line).
The Sydney Trains articles above are about services that operate on multiple railway lines, e.g. theNorth Shore & Western Line service operates on theNorth Shore,Main Suburban,Main Western andRichmond railway lines. Where the physical railway line and the service that operates on it are one in the same, then there is only one article, e.g. the Olympic Park example.
I may be open to renaming the Armadale, Fremantle and Midland services if articles were rewritten to solely be about the services with the infrastructure text merged into the other articles mentioned, but given this is an across the board RM, at this stage I am opposing across the board.
Steelkamp, adding categories for renaming part-way through a RM is procedurally incorrect as they are two separate processes;articles for renaming andcategories for renaming. Even if the majority were in favour, it would knocked back on a technicality. As it stands a step has been overlooked in nominating, as the categories don’t have hatnotes required advising of the discussion. I have struck the categories nominated from this discussion. Suggest a separate one on renaming them be held at the correct place if this discussion results in the railway line parent articles being renamed.Joondam (talk)11:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article about a railway line and one about a service is not content forking when the articles clearly say what they are trying to describe. That is what we are trying to fix:Fremantle railway line andMidland railway line claim to be about railway lines but there are no such railway lines. It's obvious that these two articles need some work, renaming them is just the first step.Armadale and Thornlie railway lines also needs a few changes but I have already reworked most of it.
Generally speaking, it's better to focus on fixed railway lines than on services which may change at any given time. I had suggested atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia#Railway lines and services in Perth that we should rather have an article about the railway line from Bayswater to High Wycombe than one about the service from Claremont to High Wycombe.Airport railway line, Perth is a little bit about both but the most important point is that the title suggests it's about a railway line from Claremont to High Wycombe and that it definitely wrong.
Support As noted above, the overwhelming majority of external sources omit the "railway" portion of the name, including many official PTA/Transperth documents. It will also bring article names into line with the local nomenclature. Additionally a significant portion, if not all, of the infrastructure lines are passenger exclusive and urban services largely run on one or two rail lines, mooting the point of separating them nearly entirely.Kerna96 (talk)15:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Airport railway line, Perth →Airport line, Perth -split intoAirport railway line, Perth for the infrastructure (i.e. 8km from Bayswater to High Wycombe), andAirport line, Perth for the 25km service that will operate on multiple lines
Support all. The addition of the wordrailway is very rare in sources. As others have observed, it may serve to distinguish a physical line from a service. But this distinction is unhelpful here. For a suburban network such as this, the scope of the articles should be, and mainly is, the services rather than the physical lines. The services are what are shown on the network diagram, and what most people want to know about. Information on a physical line, if sourced and too extensive for articles on the services that run on it, should be split out to its own article. But that isn't necessary at this stage.Andrewa (talk)00:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I have verified that it's much more common in sources without "railway", referring to either the infrastructure or the service; the article scope is both, in most cases.Dicklyon (talk)04:07, 12 January 2022 (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.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Joondalup line →Yanchep line – As of 14 July 2024, the line is now officially known as the Yanchep line. Unless there are any strong arguments against moving the article, I would say the move is necessary now that the former name is no longer in use.Aris Odi❯❯❯talk09:45, 14 July 2024 (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.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Different eras, and quite different collection of sources, both have merits. When did the oversize article become such a fashion? From a perspective ofshould andbetter, I am not so sure.
Surely the separation of the planning from operation would be a very effective way of having two articles that weren't so massive, I do not think that the merge is a good idea.JarrahTree09:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really different eras. NSTS is just a subset of the Yanchep line, which has a history spanning from the 1950s when the Stephenson–Hepburn Report was released to the present. Not really a different collection of sources either. Again, NSTS is just a subset of the Yanchep line. It doesn't serve readers well to have a second article siloed away representing a small period of history of the Yanchep line.Steelkamp (talk)00:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A single cohesive history sounds best to me. The NSTS article has a lot of wordiness and excess detail; I suspect it can be merged without making the Yanchep line article too lengthy.Pi.1415926535 (talk)05:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, of the worthwhile material in the NSTS article is already in the Yanchep line article, primarily inYanchep line#Planning, so a merge would be very easy. Particularly the list of possible options, possible routes and possible stations is rewritten in prose form.Steelkamp (talk)06:31, 11 November 2024 (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.
.svg){kind=logo}
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IINotifyOnline20:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]