Talk:East Hills railway line

Merge proposal

I've asked for this to be merged as currently there is not enough information for 3 separate pages to be maintained. The line, although built in three separate stages, is today considered as one line, even if trains do take different routes on it. The main page contains a concise history of each project and a short section on the alignment of each one; my intention, which other users previously supported, was to have separate articles for the separate lines only when more information could be produced. What the content of the other articles consists of are mere descriptions of stations (which belong in the station articles, not the railway line articles) and repeats of content from the main article (Airport and East Hills railway line, Sydney). Most of this stuff isn't even referenced and according to policy I'm well within my rights to delete it - but I'm asking for a merge instead as a third option. I'm happy to have three articles if the content requires it, but at the moment we have enough for one only. If other users are happy to find some content, then by all means go ahead, but for now we should merge all the articles together. JRG 10:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The East Hills railway line is a distinct thing, planned and constructed as one project, and then extended. Physically, trains can and do bypass the Airport Link when using the East Hills line. Since our focus here should be on the history, design and social significance - rather than current timetabling - of Sydney rail, it makes sense to discuss the line's history, design and social significance separately. Anything that applies to both this and the Airport Link can go on the Airport & East Hills railway line, Sydney page. TransitPolice 09:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Joe - there's nothing more in these articles that what should be in a main page. If you can't add any more information you do not need another article. We've been editing these pages for ages, these things have been agreed upon and your interference is not welcome. If you want to edit constructively, then find more information and add it so as to get an article that is more substantial than the parent one. Otherwise just add to the parent article. JRG 09:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember writing much of the Airport Link article myself. So don't set me up as some vandalising interloper. You act as though you own the articles when this is not the case, it is not for you alone to decide. TransitPolice 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. I agree that there is potentially enough information for separate pages, as per the separate Richmond line, Cronulla line and Eastern Suburbs line pages. I can add substantially to the content of the pages and will do so in the next few days. The Fulch 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case then go ahead, but apart from the ESR article, which is completely unreferenced, none of those articles at present have anywhere near enough information to warrant separate articles. While descriptions of alignments are fine with other information, they should not make up the entirety of the article which is the case for almost all of the articles you have mentioned there. JRG 02:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The term Airport and East Hills line refers to the operating pattern of the lines, they are historically separate entities and there seems to be enough history to justify a separate page. Also, Cityrail are probably going to reshuffle what they call lines etc when the Clearways programme is eventually completed. There are nice references to the parent article added for ease of navigation. MrHarper (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)