Talk:Yanchep line

Merge Proposal

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 the WP: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 the Joondalup railway line, Perth article which points to the NSTS article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis of terminology - and different subjects per winchester SatuSuro 09:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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 the request 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 the blacklist 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 the request 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:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/news/news71022.html?mxmroi=6219191/2427103/false

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joondalup railway line. Please take a moment to review my 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703161421/http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/scripts/viewarticle.asp?NID=2694 to http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/scripts/viewarticle.asp?NID=2694

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true 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 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 16:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Patronage graph

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)

Requested move 8 November 2021

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: Not moved. Sceptre (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

---

• Joondalup railway line → Joondalup Line
• Fremantle railway line → Fremantle Line
• Mandurah railway line → Mandurah Line

– Note: This has been previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia#Railway lines and services in Perth and Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests.

All official sources use the nomenclature proposed under this requested move:

• Transperth: [1] [2] [3] [4]
• Metronet: [5] [6] [7]

Unoffical sources variously use X Line, X line, X train line.

• Sources using X Line: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
• Sources using X line: [13] [14] [15]
• Sources using X train line: [16] [17]
• 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 and Warnbro railway station), I find myself truncating X railway line to X line after the first mention, because X line is shorter and more concise.

There is no established consensus on whether articles should use X railway line, X line, X Line, or something else entirely. There are examples of all naming schemes on Wikipedia. Examples of X Line on wikipedia include Orange Line (MBTA), Wairarapa Line, Red Line (Doha Metro), C Line (Los Angeles Metro), and Cumbernauld Line.

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)

This is a contested technical request (permalink).

• Oppose "Fremantle Line" per MOS:CAPS, which requires that the title be written in title case in a substantial 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)
• Support "Fremantle Line" IS its proper name and per MOS: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)

  Yes, they can call it what they want, of course, and cap it if they want. But WP goes by what independent sources do, per MOS:CAPS; look at books and news and you'll see it most often with lowercase "line". Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to Fremantle line per nom and Betterkeks. YttriumShrew (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose caps per "Line" IAW MOS:CAPS and WP: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 a substantial 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)
• Oppose per MOS: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)
• 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)
• 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 the guestbook • (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – Established naming convention for Australian railway lines is xx railway line. Joondam (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and to be WP:CONSISTENT with a zillion previous RMs of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• 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 word line is not capitalised because it's used as a generic term to show that something is a railway line. For the same reason station is not capitalised. In some cases the word Line 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 been Joondalup Express or Joondalup Train, but they aren't. From a quick Google search it looks like the majority of sources capitalise the word Line in this context. This is also WP:CONSISTENT with several other rail services in Australia such as the NSW TrainLink and Sydney Trains services. --PhiH (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The distinctions you would make are not being bourn out by the articles - particularly Joondalup railway line, which makes no clear distinction between the infrastructure and the service using it. Per Wikipedia: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 per MOS:CAPS/WP:RS. There is also the initial evidence. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• 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 this edit) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (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)

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.

Requested move 12 December 2021

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. 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 on MOS:CAPS, and therefore had no bearing on this discussion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• Joondalup railway line → Joondalup line
• Fremantle railway line → Fremantle line
• Mandurah railway line → Mandurah line
• Midland railway line → Midland line, Perth
• Armadale and Thornlie railway lines → Armadale and Thornlie lines
• Airport railway line, Perth → Airport line, Perth
• Morley–Ellenbrook railway line → Morley–Ellenbrook line (added by Steelkamp, 01:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC))

– The lines described in these articles aren't railway lines but services with the word line. The word railway should be removed from the titles to reflect this. This has been previously discussed at Talk:Airport railway line, Perth#Are railway and service being conflated? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia#Railway lines and services in Perth. The usage in both official and independent sources has been documented in the RM above and shows that the word railway is rarely used.

The discussion during the last RM mostly focused on MOS:CAPS which was why many opposed the move, though almost no was against the removal of the word railway. I personally prefer the variant with a capital L but I think this is a compromise we can agree on. --PhiH (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 01:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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
  • [31] Joondalup railway line: 3 results
  • [32] Mandurah Line or Mandurah line: 992 results
  • [33] Mandurah railway line: 6 results
  • [34] Fremantle Line or Fremantle line: 203 results
  • [35] Fremantle railway line: 5 results
  • [36] Midland Line or Midland line: 376 results
  • [37] Midland railway line: 4 results
  • [38] Armadale Line or Armadale line: 290 results
  • [39] Armadale railway line: 3 results
  • [40] Thornlie Line or Thornlie line: 118 results
  • [41] Thornlie railway line: 0 results
  • [42] Armadale and Thornlie lines: 10 results
  • [43] Armadale and Thornlie railway lines: 0 results
  • [44] Airport Line or Airport line: 238 results
  • [45] Airport railway line: 1 result, which is on a proposed Airport line in Melbourne, not Perth

I suggest that Morley–Ellenbrook railway line be added to this move discussion as well. Here are the results for that:

• [46] Morley–Ellenbrook Line or Morley–Ellenbrook line: 297 results
• [47] Morley–Ellenbrook railway line: 1 result

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) and South 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.

– Steelkamp (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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 have railway 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)

  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)

  +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)

  Steelkamp, Calistemon, PhiH, Request to move categories can still be made via requested moves. Page movers and admins can move categories. Cheers Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 23:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose railway lines format is the naming convention for Australian railway lines. Zedutch (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zedutch: That is not true. Look at North 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 format X Line or X 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 have all official sources using X Line, not X 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)

@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)

• Comment I have added Morley–Ellenbrook railway line to the RM. All the reasons are the same. Steelkamp (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

And I have added the categories as well. Steelkamp (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure what you guys have done but, at this moment, Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt) all are categorised under Category:Mandurah railway line and six other Perth railway line categories! Calistemon (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• 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 the Eastern Railway and Armadale with the South Western as they are about short sections of the same physical railway line and having separate articles covering the same thing is content 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, a merger 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. the North Shore & Western Line service operates on the North Shore, Main Suburban, Main Western and Richmond 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.

Same convention applies in all other Australian cities where the Transperth equivalents all brand their services as the Xxx Line or Xxx line. In Adelaide Gawler Line redirects to Gawler railway line, in Brisbane Caboolture line redirects to Caboolture railway line, in Melbourne Frankston line redirects to Frankston railway line.

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 and categories 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)

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 and Midland 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 at Wikipedia 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.

Joondalup railway line and Mandurah railway line are the only two articles that could be about the railway lines. For all the other articles the current titles are incorrect and misleading. --PhiH (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons given by others. Majority of text (1400 vs 700 words) on the Fremantle railway line is about the line's history rather than the services. Plinjit (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose if it is one vote fits all, otherwise:
  • Joondalup railway line → Joondalup line - oppose
  • Fremantle railway line → Fremantle line - merge infrastructure related text into Eastern Railway and then rename Fremantle line
  • Mandurah railway line → Mandurah line - oppose
  • Midland railway line → Midland line, Perth - merge infrastructure related text into Eastern Railway and then rename Midland line, Perth
  • Armadale and Thornlie railway lines → Armadale and Thornlie lines merge infrastructure related text into South Western Railway and then rename Armadale and Thornlie lines
  • Airport railway line, Perth → Airport line, Perth -split into Airport railway line, Perth for the infrastructure (i.e. 8km from Bayswater to High Wycombe), and Airport line, Perth for the 25km service that will operate on multiple lines
  • Morley–Ellenbrook railway line → Morley–Ellenbrook line - oppose Pacmodern (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support all. The addition of the word railway 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)
• Support all per Andrewa and my !vote last time around.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

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.

Requested move 14 July 2024

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) C F A 💬 16:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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 ❯❯❯ talk 09:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• I support, although hopefully my request at WP:RMTR will be accepted and this article can be moved without a week long RM. Steelkamp (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hopefully that is indeed accepted. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 10:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support in view of https://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/JourneyPlanner/Yanchep-Line as close as official name, despite the usage of Yanchep train extension, Yanchep rail extension. And per the vast extent of the discussions above - it would be great to have this move as simple, and as quiet as possible.JarrahTree 10:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support, just checked the Transperth app, this is indeed what its called now, as advertised in the past couple of week. Calistemon (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Australian Transport, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Western Australia, and alian Wikipedians' notice board have been notified of this discussion. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Technically not the right venue, but Category:Joondalup line should be moved simultaneously to Category:Yanchep line as well. Fork99 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  The category can be speedy renamed if this page is moved. Steelkamp (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per above reasons Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Proposed merge of Northern Suburbs Transit System into Yanchep line

Northern Suburbs Transit System should be merged into Yanchep line as they are the same topic. The Northern Suburbs Transit System is just one of the original names for the Yanchep line. The article currently covers mostly the planning stage of the Yanchep line, which is presently better covered at Yanchep line. Steelkamp (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Different eras, and quite different collection of sources, both have merits. When did the oversize article become such a fashion? From a perspective of should and better, 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. JarrahTree 09:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  Most, if not all, of the worthwhile material in the NSTS article is already in the Yanchep line article, primarily in Yanchep 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)