Talk:East West Link (Melbourne)

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

Description[edit]

The description of the proposed freeway is incorrect. The Linking Melbourne Authority's website (http://lma.vic.gov.au/pages/phase-2-preferred-route.asp) accurately describes the preferred route for the 'WestLink' portion of the East-West road connection described in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Rowley (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 December 2011

Balance[edit]

This article is becoming too highly focused on criticism of the East West Link project. Criticism should be included as part of an overall presentation of the history and intended function of the road, not as the primary part of the article. The current wording also clearly fails to maintain an editorial neutral point of view. I have material I will soon add to the article that will give a broader view, but in the meantime I'll remove the material that breaches that basic Wikipedia policy. BlackCab (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian government Budget documents (see here) and websites (see here) uniformly refer to the project as East West Link. The correct name of the Wikipedia article should therefore be East West Link, Melbourne. BlackCab (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

e2mq173 (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Fair point, although the original article read more like a government press release, and it the level of community concern with this proposal should not be ignored. This is, after all, still in the planning (and consultation stage).[reply]

You should probably review the information at WP:RS. The use of the Trains Not Toll Roads website doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for sourcing for a claim about the extent of increased congestion. It's a primary source and the claim needs to have gone through the filter of mainstream media or a book publisher with a reputation for fact checking. I have removed PTUA and other blogs as sources and that needs to go as well. Do you intend to add anything that balances or rebuts that criticism, or do you think this article should just be a voice for the protest movement? BlackCab (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

e2mq173 (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying - will update as suggested[reply]

I have expanded the lead section. I'll continue to work on expanding the article with a "History" section and another on its perceived benefits (ie, its stated purpose). The article will obviously need to cover the criticism that the government has opted to start work on the wrong section. I'll have a look at the route description again when I get a moment: the initial description seems to be far more detailed than it needs to be. I'll also move the article to its more accurate name as previously discussed. BlackCab (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I have deleted several sub-sections of the "Criticism" section because of a lack of relevant sources and what seems to be an expression of opinion by a Wikipedia editor, which would make it original research. The fact that the project will "cost billions" is not in itself a criticism. There certainly have been objections raised, but they need to be described accurately and backed up with valid sources. I have a list of news stories that do that and will add them back to the article as I get time. BlackCab (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now gone well back the other way and reads more like a political advertisement! e2mq173 (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've said I have a list of news stories covering the criticisms and have just sat down to start going through them. The "viewpoints" so far presented are necessary explanations of why Eddington considered the road was necessary and one line from the Premier on why his government decided to commit to it. BlackCab (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added what seem to be the major points of criticism. There are another few details I'll work in as well, but I think the major concerns are now covered. BlackCab (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few more stories about concerns over transparency of the business case and doubts over how robust it is. I'll break those out as a separate section under the Criticism subhead and remove them from "Other issues". BlackCab (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nice work e2mq173 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to add this info as change.org is blacklisted, but there are actually 11,853 signatures on the petition (rather than 1,300). I wanted to update the numbers with the petition as the source, but it won't let me do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.142.51 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protests and pickets[edit]

Repeated attempts have been made to add detail on pickets and protests at geotechnical drill sites on the tunnel route. I have removed these because they repeat material already in the article about pickets, protests and the cost of police presence. The link to a YCAT website is a deadlink; even if it did work, an anti-tunnel website run by a protest group is not deemed a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. The link to Tumblr does not work; even if it did it would not be acceptable here; it provides nothing of encyclopedic worth. The link to the planning panels website provides no information of any value to this article. This article does not exist to serve as a bulletin board for protesters. Despite what some idiot has suggested here ("Black Cab You are making your own political call. Are you employed by the agencies seeking to promote this project?"), I have no connection with the road project, I just want a factual, balanced, informative and well-written article that complies with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and a neutral point of view. BlackCab (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation style[edit]

Note: There is a proposal at WT:AURD#Move_articles_to_bracket_disambiguation to rename this article (and others) to conform to the WP:AURDNAME guideline – specifically, using brackets instead of a comma for disambiguation. - Evad37 [talk] 08:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article, Western Distributor (Melbourne) and for the sake of consistency moved this one as well to its new name with the disambiguator contained in parenthesis rather than following a comma. The discussion on brackets V commas, incidentally, is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads/Archive 5#Move articles to bracket disambiguation BlackCab (TALK) 10:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Present vs past tense[edit]

I have twice reverted edits to the opening sentence of the lead section in order to retain the present tense. The article accurately states in the opening paragraph that the project is now in doubt because of the change in government, but the East West Link is still a proposed road. The new state government is opposed to it and the Premier has ordered the construction consortium to halt work on it, but the consortium still has a contract with the Victorian government to build it. Additionally, the Opposition continues to support the project, and the Prime Minister continues to urge the Victorian government to honour the contract and proceed with construction. The Premier himself has conceded that the East West Link, in some truncated or altered form, could still be built. While those uncertainties (overwhelming though they may be) remain, the project should not be described in the past tense. BlackCab (TALK) 07:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 April 2015 the Andrews Labor government confirmed the project would not proceed and announced a deal with the construction consortium to accept $339m to walk away from the project. That's about as final as it could be, so I have altered the tenses throughout the article to reflect that it was a project that now will not go ahead. BlackCab (TALK) 05:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 1 December 2015 state Liberal leader Matthew Guy said the Liberals were still committed to building the East West Link should they win power at the next state election. This means the road is still proposed and the present tense should therefore be used. BlackCab (TALK) 05:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re this string [1][2][3] of reverts from User:Kieran EWL: Dogged persistence is no substitute for discussion. I have explained above that the Liberals regard the East West Link as an existing proposal that they would again pursue should they regain power. Therefore the present tense remains appropriate. Can you please quit edit warring and start discussing. BlackCab (TALK) 21:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, the Andrews government have already committed to pay back the East-West consortium [4] for the Link which they're dumping in favour of the Western Distributor [5] and also since they're sinking the rest of the East-West money into there, there is no way the State Liberals could reverse it before and mind you IF, they win the 2018 election, that is also a significant obstacle to them restoring the East-West Link project. So as far as the current time is concerned and as long as we are not speculating on the future election of the Liberal Party, or discussing their plans for the future, the project is currently officially dead because it has no support from governments both state and federal. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It remains a proposed road, just as the Healesville Freeway and North East Link are proposed roads and the Doncaster railway line and Rowville railway lin are proposed railway lines, regardless of the short-term likelihood of their completion. The article notes that the state Liberal Party still wants it, federal Liberal MPs want it and Andrews himself has stated that part of it may yet go ahead. BlackCab (TALK) 09:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlackCab and RuleTheWiki, any idea if the state Libs have updated their position now that the renamed West Gate Tunnel is further advanced? (n.b. Not trying to solicit here, just notifying involved users) Triptothecottage (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are they planning to return to the East West Link project if they win at the next election, you mean? They haven't said so specifically. I'm not sure they'd have the appetite for that. The Libs' state leader Matthew Guy criticised the Westgate Tunnel project the day it was renamed (2 April 2017). He "promised he would not rip up contracts for the project but flagged he may try to renegotiate if he was elected in 2018." (The Age, April 3). BlackCab (TALK) 22:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East West Link (Melbourne). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Link_(Melbourne)&oldid=1196326103"