Talk:Rapid bus routes in Sydney

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

Bus rapid transit in Sydney[edit]

Since Sydney has no discrete BRT network, I favour a single article to replace the several short articles on those sections of the Sydney bus network that have BRT features. Mqst north (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rapid bus routes in Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Consensus to not merge after 30 days. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I propose that Metrobus (Sydney) be merged into Rapid bus routes in Sydney. Metrobus was merely an early step towards a rapid bus network for the city, and is best addressed as a phase in the rapid routes history. Mqst north (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I further propose that B-Line (Sydney) also be merged here. While I accept that certain routes meet the notability criteria – as users User:Quaidy and User:WWGB showed with articles on the 144 and L90 – the B1's notability appears limited to its novelty. Better, in my view, to place it in the context of other rapid routes in the city. Mqst north (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying User:Marcnut1996, User:PhilipTerryGraham, User:Stapb.) Mqst north (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – The Rapid bus routes in Sydney article is an absolute sprawl, and unless an example of how these two articles can be merged in a way that's a) coherent and properly segmented by services and routes and b) won't end up just being mini-articles cobbled together to form a larger article leading to a new consensus to re-split it again, I oppose a merger. I commend your work in expanding the article, Mqst north, but the format of the article remains the same – sections focused on areas, rather than the services and routes themselves – and therefore won't work well as a primary source for readers to look into the Metrobus and B-Line networks and their routes. For a broader context of how successful the format of the Metrobus article's format is with readers, this is an overview of the views on the article over the past year since January 2017 for Metrobus (Sydney), and Rapid bus routes in Sydney respectively, using the Pageviews Analysis tool.
The Metrobus (Sydney) article is a great article that presents a list of routes in a coherent, segmented order through subsections. One looking for information on a particular service, the M41 for example, can easily navigate down to the "M41" section on the Metrobus article. For the Rapid bus routes in Sydney article, however, one would have to have previous knowledge that it is a Hurstville to Macquarie Park route before navigating down to the "Hurstville to Macquarie Park" section, which doesn't mention the M41 until the fifth paragraph. A dedicated "Fleet" section describing the buses used by the Metrobus network also appears on the Metrobus article as well. I'd believe that if the B-Line (Sydney) article is developed to this standard, it too can be as useful for readers as the Metrobus article is, as there is more to the B-Line network than just the B1 service. As I pressed earlier, I would only support a merger if a good example of such can be drawn up, such as a userspace or mainspace draft, because I do not have a belief that this merger can work. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 22:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that Metrobus is a historical concept – and one that lasted less than a decade. No new Metrobus routes are being created, no new buses ordered in its livery, and no new stops being added with its branding. Nowhere on the transportnsw.info website does the term 'Metrobus' appear. Nor does it appear in new editions of M-series timetables. While the Metrobus 'era' should appear in accounts of the history of Sydney bus services, to give it its own article is to stretch the definition of notability. We might as well create articles about other bus network product names that live only in old signs – Metroline, CityLink, FerryLink, Red Arrow, the Airport Express and so on. Mqst north (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Suggested target is a fairly convoluted article and as stated by PhilipTerryGraham, the B-Line and Metrobus articles are superior in quality. A merge would just dumb these articles down to the lower quality of this one. Just because something only had a relatively short life is not reason to delete. No reason that the articles suggested above couldn’t be created it sufficient cites are found to demonstrate notability. Ponyo98 (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging B-Line - short article, limited scope for expansion & clearly a rapid bus route. Neutral for Metrobus - somewhat ill-defined brand (even in its heyday) that now seems to be deprecated, yet not entirely abolished. Gareth (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some more work on the target article. As you can see, it explains the development of rapid routes (including B1 and many ex-Metrobus routes) in their proper land use, service planning and historical context. Let the trip planner and network maps list out stops: readers are here to find out the why, not plan their journeys. Mqst north (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This articles should be considerably shortened by having details of B1 and Metrobus routes deleted and replaced by references to the articles of the services concerned.Fleet Lists (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately this page (and a number of other pages associated) have been amended over recent times to include information from a 2013 plan as though it is fact. Very little of that plan has been implemented and after four years with a change of minister who has different ideas, I suspect very little if anything will be implemented in the future. I have come across some redirects which now redirect to pages which no longer contain the information to which the redirect was intended. I have today cleaned up a lot of stuff in page Local bus routes in Sydney which now seems to describe the various Sydney regions instead of the bus routes for which is was originally intended hence the redirects to it now being meaningless. This needs a major overhaul - I am not sure what direction to take as I would need to undo a lot of work which has been done recently.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2017 (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.

Orphaned references in Rapid bus routes in Sydney[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rapid bus routes in Sydney's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Transdev":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rapid_bus_routes_in_Sydney&oldid=1173692483"