Talk:G:link

Australia: Queensland C‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal G:link is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains C‑class Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Gold Coast Rapid Transit.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:G-link Parkwood extension.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:G-link Bundall extension.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:G-link Burleigh Heads extension.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:G-link Coolangatta extension.

Move

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. SM247^{My 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. SM247^{My 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

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

Move to GoldLinQ

As the official name is GoldLinQ (as evidenced by the official website), I've moved the page to "GoldLinQ". Geoking66_talk 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

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

GoldLinQ - current article name - the company building and/or operating the railway system
G:link - the branded name of the railway system
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
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

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]

All the stations are newly built to the same style of design. Separate articles would be warranted if they had a history pre their current use, eg converted railway stations as on Manchester Metrolink and Port Melbourne railway line. Mo7838 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in both the cases you give only stations that are notable have articles. Melbourne has over 1600 tram stops, should there be an article for each? No, that would be absurd, they are simply not notable enough (bar a few). This is why we have the general notability guideline. As has been written so well in WP:STATIONS, 'There are many thousands of railway and subway stations. The question is sometimes raised as to whether one of these places is notable enough for a standalone article. Wikipedia:Notability says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.".' And in this case there are zero sources reliable or not that are independent of the subject, unlike the examples given by MO7838. Liamdavies (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operations

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

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.