Talk:Cherrybrook railway station

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

Extension to Hurstville[edit]

The extension of Sydney Metro to Hurstville was part of the early proposals for this train service but is no longer part of current plans. Hence it is being deleted from all stations concerned. Please do not revert but discuss here if necessary.Fleet Lists (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The normal process is change-revert-discuss. So I've reverted; let's discuss. :) Sydney's Rail Future contains the 20-year strategy for extensions to the rail network and reflects government policy. While the current stage of Sydney Metro doesn't include the extension to Hurstville (Bankstown conversion was always going to come first) that doesn't mean it has been cancelled or is no longer the government's intention. Mqst north (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you have not provided any reference that it is still Government policy, I have reverted your posts.Please discuss to get consensus.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References added. Mqst north (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
user:Gareth Noted - However I suspect that a document over three years old with a one line reference to Hurstville does not necessarily reflect current policy - hence I had not used it as a reference. Now we have the ridiculous situation where we some stations with this repetitive information and not others while the main Sydney Metro article which includes possible extensions to the Metro, makes no mention of it at all. If it is should be included anywhere, which is not what I am suggesting, that is the place where it should be.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electrification[edit]

As user Turingway has reverted to Electrification=yes which is supported by me, the consensus at this point is that it should be YES and left at that. And the same for the other stations. This also applies to accessibility.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for Template:Infobox_station#History are pretty clear regarding the electrification attribute: "Date station was electrified, if not previously at date of opening". Since the stations will all be electrified from opening, these should be left blank. Mqst north (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The field should be used to specify which stations are served by electrified by electric trains and which are not. While the guide has validity, it should be used in conjunction with common sense. Seems to be the methodology applied to other stations, Eastern Suburbs, Epping-Chatswood lines etc. Turingway (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the instructions are pretty clear. While I take your point about common sense, common sense would dictate that a metro station built in 2015 would be electrified. The field is so readers will know that, say, an electrified station like Dapto opened prior to electrification. Mqst north (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While those familiar with the workings of metro systems and more specifically Sydney's transport network would expect it to be electrified, Wikipedia caters to a global audience who may not be familiar with either. While all station openings in recent decades in NSW have (I believe) been electrified, not so in other states e.g. Tarneit railway station in Melbourne, hence feel it relevant to differentiate. Turingway (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. First, I am aware that some railway stations built today are not electrified, but we are talking specifically about a metro. Metro systems are by definition electrified. Second, the editors who came up with the info box template didn't create a yes/no parameter for electrification. You'll note it shows up under the "history" subheading when the page renders. It is clearly designed for a date. If you would like to change this, start at the template's talk page. Mqst north (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To which I would add – and I apologise if this sounds rude – I wish you would put more effort into adding to the bodies of these articles than quibbling over whether the info box template instructions represent common sense. Mqst north (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may also sound rude, but you appear to have taken over the Sydney Metro Northwest and act as though you own it without taking any notice of what other may think, without taking any consensus into consideration.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't the majority vote (especially not when the majority is two editors) that emerges in 24 hours – it's the result of reasoned discussion. I realise you've made a lot of edits to the NWRL pages and feel a sense of ownership; it's not my intention to take them over. But I do ask that you engage with my specific points above. Mqst north (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont feel any ownership but you appear to think that you do not have to supply any references but on the other hand demanding that others do supply them,in one case deleting referenced material and replacing it with unreferenced material which you subsequently rectified after I reverted your posts.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right on that – I added something unreferenced, you called me out on it, I supplied a reference. That is how it is supposed to work. But do you have any reason for going against the info box template instructions in this case? Mqst north (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cherrybrook railway station. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cherrybrook railway station. 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) 11:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to "Cherrybrook metro station"[edit]

I think that this would be a better idea for all the metro stations since they are completely detached from the Sydney Trains network. Chatswood and Epping would stay the same. Not sure if this would be fitting for the standards of Wikipedia though. This is just an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinRails (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, xx railway stations is the established convention for all Australian stations, be they served by classic or metro trains. Bremptosds (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cherrybrook_railway_station&oldid=1200827691"