Talk:Bankstown Line

Stations table

After being accused of being a vandal, I thought I'd raise this here. I think that the large station table on this and other Cityrail pages is too big and directory like for an encyclopaedia page. Would anyone read it? It seems a rehash of information that could easily be found on the official Cityrail website. Thoughts (with civility please)? Endarrt 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern railway line, Sydney which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wynyard or St James

The article states "Electric passenger services originally operated along the Bankstown Line to St James station, until the 1956 opening of Circular Quay station and the completion of the City Circle."

I believe this to be incorrect as the line operated to Wynyard and not St James until 1956. It did not start to operate to St James first from Central and vice versa until 1979 when the Eastern Suburbs line opened and the Illawarra line trains went there instead of going to St James. I have not been able to find a reference to back this up but I am sure I am correct.Fleet Lists (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:North Shore, Northern & Western Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Splitting proposal for Bankstown Line and Liverpool & Inner West Line

Just want to gather other editors' thoughts on whether or not Bankstown Line and Liverpool & Inner West Line (currently a redirect back to Bankstown Line) should be two separate articles for readability purposes and considering that the new line is fundamentally a different service to the old one. If split, all information about the Liverpool & Inner West (post-2024 information) would be split from this article (pre-2024 information). Otherwise, if consensus is to keep it all in one place, then the article should be moved to the new name. Fork99 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi sorry to be pedantic fork but too early?

For example you edited the article to refer to the "now closed Dulwich Hill station"

Technically the station isn't closed there's still 2 more services it closes in half an hour but the edit has already been made 115.64.90.76 (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't make those edits to change the present tense/past tense of the station statuses, I believe it might have been @RealTsetsTransport. I've been reverting premature changes by other editors to these articles. Fork99 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose a split; support move. In my view this article should relate specifically to the Sydney Trains T3 service, and should be moved to "Liverpool & Inner West Line" as the new name of the T3. All of the old Bankstown-related content should be stripped out of the article as it is no longer relevant to the new format of the T3 which runs via the Main Suburban and Main Southern railway lines instead. The physical Bankstown railway line already has a separate article which covers off on that line's history. There is no need to duplicate that content here. I suggest keeping this article lean and focused on the Sydney Trains T3 service as it runs today. Tomiĉo (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tomiĉo: I'm confused on what you mean by the old Bankstown-related content should be stripped out of the article but you oppose a split? Are you suggesting a complete removal of the content instead of a copy and paste split? Fork99 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC) (struck due to reply below - Fork99 (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC))

Oh I think I understand what you mean @Tomiĉo, are you suggesting that all Bankstown Line service information should be at the physical railway line article at Bankstown railway line? If in that case, maybe the service info at the physical railway article should be moved to Bankstown Line and the split goes ahead?

There's been quite a lot of discussion in the past on whether a "Line" or "line" refers to a physical track or the actual service, but in Sydney, the convention is that each Sydney Trains service gets a separate service-focused article, and the physical tracks gets another separate article (except Olympic Park and Carlingford since those lines were/are quite short). Fork99 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand that convention, and I support its use for current services. However, I don't think it is necessary (or really in the spirit of WP:N) to have a separate article for a historical services which formed a component of a broader network. The Bankstown railway line article already speaks succinctly to the historical services that operated on the line. I don't think there is a need for much more than that, and if there is, I think it can be accommodated within that article rather than being standalone. Tomiĉo (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tomiĉo: Ok, I get your argument and it makes sense. I'm going to let this discussion go ahead for at least 7 days to see if there's any other opinions on this. Fork99 (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)