Talk:G:link

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

Move[edit]

I have moved this article to Gold Coast Light Rail because the proposal has progressed since the feasibility study started. --WikiCats 12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure where it came from, but I think at this stage Gold Coast Rapid Transit would be a better title - much as we would like to think so, bus rapid transit has not been ruled out and all the releases and documents including TransLink refer to the GCRT or GCRTS, instead of explicitly to light rail. SM247My Talk 10:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nobody has objected, I will change the name. Light rail is not the definitive option at the moment and the page should reflect that, although it is probably the more likely option. SM247My Talk 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm fine with that. I have sectioned out info from the origional study. --WikiCats 10:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast Rapid Transit System[edit]

Beautifully designed article, the centre placement of illustration is awesome, congratulations – Moebiusuibeom 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to GoldLinQ[edit]

As the official name is GoldLinQ (as evidenced by the official website), I've moved the page to "GoldLinQ". Geoking66talk 18:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official name is not GoldLinQ. That is the name of the company building it. The Offficial name is Gold Coast Light Rail. You should not be moving it without dissuasion.WikiCats (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article name - move request[edit]

Let's name this article once and for all. Here's the options as I see them:

  1. GoldLinQ - current article name - the company building and/or operating the railway system
  2. G:link - the branded name of the railway system
  3. Gold Coast Rapid Transit - the name of the originally proposed railway system and/or the project with the objective of building/delivering the railway system
  4. Gold Coast Light Rail - the name of the railway system

Fairly straightforward to me, options 1 and 2 are company and branded names, option 3 is the former/old name the proposed system (if I'm not mistaken) and/or the project with the objective of building/delivering the railway system, leaving option 4 to be the name of the actual railway station used on the official GoldLinQ website.

Still straightforward but the four stations with articles so-far Surfers Paradise North (GoldLinQ station), Cypress Avenue (GoldLinQ station), Cavill Avenue (GoldLinQ station) and Surfers Paradise (GoldLinQ station) will require moving to Surfers Paradise North (G:link station), Cypress Avenue (Gold Coast Rapid Transit station), Cavill Avenue (Gold Coast Light Rail station) or similar.

Please share your thoughts and !votes below. Thanks! FilmTVComicsNerd (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2) G:link, as this is going to be the trading name once opened. Mo7838 (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest and support a move to 'Light rail in the Gold Coast', it's specific enough to know what it's about, but generic enough to not require renames in the future if/when the system gets rebranded (again). Liamdavies (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I've plunged forward and moved this to "G:link", although I wouldn't be averse to calling it "Gold Coast Light Rail" either. "Light rail in the Gold Coast" would be a regional overview of something, and not really in line with WP's other articles about light rail lines/systems. Jpatokal (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stations[edit]

As all of the stations are likely to be very similar, would it better to include in the main GoldLinQ article as done in Inner West Light Rail, rather than have an article for each station? Mo7838 (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge of station articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, they simply aren't notable enough to have their own article per WP:GNG. Liamdavies (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This all depends on how you look at things. The current preferred way of receiving information is in short bites, rather than in long meandering pieces. Stations are also related to towns, neighbourhoods, streets etc., as well as just the line. Keeping them as stand alone articles does not overwhelm the main article with detail and allows them to be indexed by other characteristics. Think of this as keeping information in an old fashioned card file - just like you do with your profiles of friends and family. You don't have that sort of stuff on one large sheet of paper, do you? Sw2nd (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only four of the 16 stations have articles. Of those four articles I'd say that at least 50% is exactly the same wording and they all rely on a single source - the alignment map. If the alignment map is the only source that one can extract enough information to write a stub where half the words are verbatim across all four articles I simply cannot see how they come anywhere near passing WP:GNG. Significant external coverage is required, these do not even have significant primary coverage; they are simply not notable and all info should be merged into this article, which at 829 words of prose is no where near large enough to consider a long meandering piece. If the article gets too large, or stations received coverage wide enough to satisfy WP:GNG then they can be split out. Liamdavies (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operations[edit]

what is meant when it states that the lrt is replaced by buses on weekdays? shouldn't it be weekends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It runs through the night on Saturday and Sunday mornings. On weekdays, route 700 is extended from Broadbeach to GCUH between midnight and 5am --Advanstra (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed[edit]

I propose splitting the Stations section into a new article titled List of G:link stations. The only good article on a light rail system, to my knowledge, is Bergen Light Rail. And that has a separate article for its stations. The benefit of moving the table to a separate article is it allows us to replace it with higher-level prose that's encyclopedia better for the reader. The details in the table are excellent - the images, the station codes, the Tranzlink zones, distance, GPS location and nearby locations served - it's just too much detail for the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.82.65 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I have created the new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New9374 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on G:link. 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) 19:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section move proposal[edit]

I propose that the Proposed stations section of the G:link article be moved to the List of G:link stations article. New9374 (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I don't know why this was even written outside of that list article in the first place. ItsPugle (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for both Stages 3 and 4. Osrone (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've assumed consensus and completed this move since no objections have been brought up in the more than two years this discussion has been open. Attydatty (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trams stops notability[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no merger. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the trams stops are particularly notable. All were built to the same design at the same time with most are just stub articles with one primary cite. Propose merging these into the main G:link article along the same lines as other Australian light rail lines CBD and South East Light Rail, Inner West Light Rail and Newcastle Light Rail. Osrone (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose all mergers. All these articles have a decent amount of content and merging them all here will only overload this article. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, I think it's a bit unfair comparing NSW light rail lines to a QLD light rail line. The G:link may not be the most used line, but it's certainly more well-known (thanks to the GC's influence) as opposed to the various Sydney and Newcastle lines. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many of the articles did have PRODs for notability the articles that did have them did not go any further and the notices were removed. I entirley agree with SHB's statement that it would overload the GLINK and trying to summarise information into the Glink article will just create more problems. NotOrrio (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unclear how merging would improve Wikipedia. Having separate articles allows the coordinates to be embedded so they will show up in Special:Nearby and allows us to provide more detail and images of each station. Merging eighteen articles into G link would overload it as mentioned above. Garuda3 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging all station articles either to the list or the main article. Not one stop on the network is notable except Helensvale, because it's also a QR station. Greencyclone (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all merges. US light rail systems have pages for individual stops? Why can't Australia? HoHo3143 (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because these particular stations are permastubs with no substantive content? And nowhere near all US light rail systems have pages for each individual stop. There's no reason what little information there is cannot be contained within the list article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G:link&oldid=1202181532"