Talk:Sydney Metro (2008 proposal)

Merge proposal
In the light of the government's decision to rename its SRT/NWRL project "Sydney Metro", it's probably a good time to review the five articles about their predecessor's metro proposals that will never be built: CBD Metro, Anzac railway line, North West Metro and West Metro (plus the Sydney Metro Authority they established to build them). As a group, the proposals have some significance – certainly there was extensive debate and spending on them. Individually, they were often no more than thought bubbles. Mqst north (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support merging Sydney Metro Authority into this new article. I think Anzac railway line should be merged into North West Metro - the latter is basically an expanded and more official version of the former. The CBD Metro and West Metro articles could be merged together - these superseded the North West Metro and are really two stages of the same project. I think one combined article for all the projects would be too long and potentially confusing. Gareth (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt there's any risk of an overlong article here, given:
 * the proposals all came and went in just two years, with no actual construction done
 * the paucity of sources beyond old government documents and contemporary newspaper reports
 * the fact these were all sections of a continuous proposal... Anzac was just a vague idea that became the NWM proposal, NWM was shortened to CBD, CBD would have eventually extended into West.
 * With the sources available at this stage, I estimate a combined article would be less than half the length to the main Sydney Metro Northwest article... so I can't see any grounds to assume the length would confuse readers. Naturally, if more sources and thus more information become available, there's nothing to stop future editors from creating standalone pages again. Mqst north (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Update I've performed the merge for Sydney Metro Authority. Will await further discussion re the others. Mqst north (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - These articles should be mentioned in the history, but they warrant separate articles given the level of development of the different proposals and reliable sources that reported on them. Plus merging usually ends up removing interesting material. -- Trödel 16:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I think it'd be a good approach to dealing with all of these articles and Mqst north's rationale makes sense to me. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Far more user-friendly (if merged competently) for anyone interested in the topic than having to trawl through five separate articles. Maias (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Clean-up
I have had a go at cleaning up the article. As expected, much of the material in the four individual line articles was repeated. I've removed the duplication, placed it all in chronological order and removed some of the more POV material. I think it still needs work, though. Mqst north (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)