Talk:Western Harbour Tunnel

Splitting proposal
I propose that the article be split into two separate pages: Reason being, ever since both projects were announced as one project in 2017, they had increasingly diverged in terms of project scope, culminating in the cancellation of the latter while the other one is under construction. Therefore, the only overlap was when both ideas were floated together in 2017 and it makes sense for the content to be split accordingly.  Marc nut 1996  (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Western Harbour Tunnel (Sydney)
 * Beaches Link
 * Support one is under construction, one has been cancelled. Curnoshoz (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as above. Lordstorm (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2023

 * 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. Per consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Western Harbour Tunnel (Sydney) → Western Harbour Tunnel – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, proposed name currently set as a disambiguation, but with only two entries (the third in the See also section only mentioning the other two), easily covered by the existing hatnotes per WP:ONEOTHER. Veeteusr (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for two reasons. 1. The "Western Harbour Tunnel" name is too vague and gives no indication of where in the world the tunnel is. 2. You are right in saying there are no other entries that link to Western Harbour Tunnel, but in the future if some other city around the world proposed a Western Harbour Tunnel or Western Harbor Tunnel, then there is need to disambiguate anyway. Marc nut 1996  (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: @Marcnut1996: By your logic, the only other article that this name could be confused with, Western Harbour Crossing, would be too vague. I don't think there's any Australia-related WikiProject conventions, Wikipedia policy or guideline stating that geographical place article names should state the locale of the article in question if disambiguation is unnecessary; e.g. Cross City Tunnel in Sydney is fairly ambiguous in my opinion to someone unfamiliar with Sydney's road network, but otherwise that article isn't disambiguated. I think distinguish hatnotes on both articles linking to each other is fine. If or when we need to disambiguate in the future, then by all means that will happen. Otherwise, we'd be unnecessarily disambiguating absolutely every article on Wikipedia (WP:PRECISE). Fork99 (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per WP:OVERPRECISION. Any confusion can be addressed with About hatnote. Wracking  talk! 21:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: the "gives no indication of where in the world the tunnel is" argument is not a strong one. Naming convention for Sydney bridge, road and tunnel articles is to name with no mention of the city unless required to disambiguate. This is in line with how tunnel articles both in all other Australian states and globally are named.
 * Regards the "in the future if some other city around the world proposed a Western Harbour Tunnel, then there is need to disambiguate" argument, the issue can be revisited as and when. In the future there may be another Lane Cove Tunnel or St Helena Tunnel, but that doesn't mean we should be renaming these articles just because something might happen. Bramortui (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2023 (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.