Talk:North West Metro

Major Rewrite is required

Due to today's announcement by the NSW Government, a major rewrite of this article is required. It's only a start, hopefully others can provide additional information. But at this stage the only reference material I've been able to use this the press release dated 18/03/08 [1]. I've also removed content that refered to the previous heavy rail option using existing Cityrail rolling stock. Surfing bird (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Stations

Does anyone know what the numbers 2001/2 and 2005/6 refer to next to the station list? And where the Eastwood reference came from? (See here for more details.)JRG (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I was thinking of adding a criticism sub section to the article with vaild referencing (there are plenty) and there will be more in the future. The article currently looks very much like a NSW Government paid advertisement - which makes me wonder what some editors real life employment is. But from what I can see the article looks "owned". So maybe one of the "owners" can do that? Its not that hard to do, a simple Google search revealed the following [2] [3] Surfing bird (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Beecroft Facility

Though little mentioned in TIDC documents the "Egress and Ventilation shaft" at Beecroft is almost certain to be built. Put another way, if the rail link is built this facility will be built. The tunnel is too long to self-ventilate, and in case of emergency some form of egress will be needed for up to hundreds of passengers. I've edited the main article to include as full a description of the facility as possible from TIDC documents and conversations with TIDC engineers. It is as significant to the operation of the railway as any of the stations, and in fact is where a station would normally have been placed had it not been in bushland. At this point most Beecroft residents do not realise a surface facility will be needed for their suburb. They think the tunnel will pass underneath it with no surface impact. I do not work for TIDC.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your text was speculative and seems to be your personal interpretation of documents on a NSW government website. I've also removed the text from the article on Beecroft for the same reasons, with the additional reason that the version of the text there was non-neutral. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but Bushfire Bill's edits seem to be from the perspective of a concerned local resident - the sentence about where concerned residents could view comparable structures seemed to give that away. From reading the local paper about the residents' concerns of housing prices lowering from building and tunnelling work in the area, this isn't surprising, but it's not acceptable for Wikipedia. This would seem to violate Wikipedia policy on NPOV. Thanks for removing this. JRG (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If this became a relevant local issue (the evidence suggests it isn't) then a small sentence or two on it might be worthwhile (on the Beecroft page, not here), but no more than that. And it's certainly not notable at the moment. JRG (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Nick and JRG, I have spoken at length with TIDC engineers and my sources are either these engineers personally or their own documents (where available). Have you done the same in claiming my addition is "speculative"? Nick, your use of the word "speculative" is itself "speculative." This will be a major facility with a large surface impact on the Beecroft area, in heritage bushland. My personal position is immaterial. My words are carefully sourced. I have repeated or reproduced only information from TIDC. Given that the tenor of this article as a whole is itself promotional, and relies on press releases for much of its content, I do not feel that my addition to the article is in any way more "speculative" than the rest of it. --Bushfire Bill (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. I agree that the negative impact of this line should definetly be included in the article (and that press releases generally should be used sparingly), but you need to find a third-party source for this. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I note your crocodile tears, Nick, but the source is published. Check the footnote: it refers to a TIDC document (one which the original authors, presumably TIDC employees, also cite themselves in the same article). What 3rd party source would you deem appropriate? There are none other than TIDC. Then have a look at Lady Game Drive if you don't believe me. They only build these blockhouses one way: all the same. I have had this information from the horse's mouth at TIDC. They are relying on keeping publicity to a minimum. You are helping them. Despite this, my text is accurate, or are you suggesting that egress for a trainload of panicking passengers will not require substantial surface works? Perhaps you don't think parking for maintenance and emergency vehicles will be required? Or a security fence to house millions of dollars of safety equipment, in order to prevent sabotage or vandalism? Go take a look another look at Lady Game Drive where nearly two acres of bush was bulldozed to build a similar facility... in a national park. If you're after speculative material, please delete the photograph of the (non-existent) Castle Hill station. It's a piece of totally computer-generated graphics dreamed up at somebody's desk. Hardly a firm source, given the on-again, off-again history of this rail link.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That reference is a very dry two paragraphs on the facility and states that "A location for this facility has not been determined and is subject to further design, planning and assessment". As such, it does not support your claims about where this will be built or its impact and I've reverted your text. If there are no third party sources to support your claims then it doesn't belong here. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the cited section in the document referred to states: "A ventilation building would also be required at the midpoint of the tunnel between Epping and Franklin Road Stations to optimise the ventilation performance." The midpoint is this Reserve, to the metre. Hence the "midway" reference is valid and verifiable. The stated formula in the document defines the location. The doubt expressed later in the cited section (and to which you refer) is related to the exact spot within the Reserve, not the location of the Reserve itself as the midway point. It is designed as a "two bob each way" statement to confuse pedantic editors like yourself: "It's got to go midway, but we don't know where it's going". Standard spin, like much else about this rail line. I have specifically resolved this ambiguity in discussions with senior TIDC engineers. It is therefore expressed as a fact here, after a private process of disambiguation of the document, and does not contradict the document, merely clarifies its meaning. I cite only a fair reading of the document, as conversations with engineers are not acceptable. As to extent of the facility, you excised a reference to an existing standard facility elsewhere, performing the same tasks, which defines the scope of the intended works. The document also contains references elsewhere to using Crown Land wherever possible, to minimize resumptions. The Reserve is on Crown Land, in fact the only Crown land anywhere near the midway point and also on the tunnel alignment. However to cite this separate section as further evidence regarding location would be arguing the case, which I believe would violate Wiki ground rules. For this article to be fully informative and accurate it should contain all the details of the Metro link, not just the convenient, "good news", as you yourself agree above. Anyone can supply missing details, which I have done. I wish you were as pedantic with the article as a whole. for instance, there is a claim in the article that trains will run every four minutes, three in peak hour. Serious doubt has been cast upon this frequency in an article in the SMH this morning. The citation of frequency in the article is an assertion. It goes to the heart of the "Metro" nature of the line, but it is unsupported by any document whatsoever, and is now heavily criticised. Chop or clarify that if you like. --Bushfire Bill (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are not following the correct protocol for Wikipedia sources. The report says "the midpoint", that is all. You can't infer from a source what isn't there; it's original research and violates Wikipedia policy. You should also note the document you are referring to is for the North West Rail Link, not the North West Metro - and even if they will have the same route between Epping and Rouse Hill, that is yet to appear in a published source. So you can't just infer from the document what you think it says (even if you are right, and I do believe you actually) - you need to back it up with a published source. Even if you have checked with TIDC sources, that's not a publicly printed available source and can't be used as authority for the information you want to put up there. Thirdly, I think you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and think about the balance of the article. With your multiple paragraphs on the Beecroft exit point, that's hardly an important thing compared to the rest of the line, are they? To this point there has been no newspaper article or other document highlighting any controversies over the Beecroft exit point, so why does it need multiple paragraphs? At the moment it doesn't, but if controversy arises in the future, then you would be welcome to put that sort of information there (fully sourced and backed up of course). The complaints from residents in Castle Howard Road in Beecroft/Cheltenham about the route of the original NWRL tunnel before the Epping-Franklin Road alignment was chosen have caused more controversy than this — if you're a local resident who wants to write something about local area issues for the line, why don't you add that?

By the way, don't labour the point by citing examples such as the picture at the Castle Hill station page (because it's an artist's impression and has no notability or source claims, and it HAS been published anyway), or the journey times on the metro (because that only came out this morning and it's unreasonable that people would have to add it immediately). Let's stick to the real argument and that is about the non-notability of the Beecroft facility. JRG (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nick and JRG wholeheartedly. Conversations with people even if they are Government officials are not the basis of sources of information for this encyclopaedia. As previously stated it is definitely original research and is unverified. what any govt department says that is public is through official releases and websites not conversations. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see your reasonings but I disagree with them. If the document cited had said "in between" or "at some point near midway" your point would be stronger. But it specifically says the facility will be built "at the midpoint of the tunnel". I took TIDC at their word. This term "midpoint" is more definite than "somewhere in the middle of" or "in between". It is possible to accurately measure the tunnel and to find find the precise midpoint, which I have done. "Midpoint" and "Chilworth Reserve" are synonymous. "Midpoint" even has its own Wikipedia entry as, "the middle point of a line segment. It is equidistant from both endpoints." It was this potential ambiguity that I resolved in conversation. When they say midpoint they mean the precise midpoint, being "Chilworth Reserve". Michelle, in the article I was careful not to refer to any conversation, only in these notes. So your whole point is based on a "straw man" argument: that I used conversations to make a case in the article. I read the report and verified by consultation with one of its authors that it actually said what it appeared to mean on a plain reading: the location of the "midpoint". Are you inferring that I should not assume TIDC means what it says in its own document? Surely that is non-Wiki behavior? Please define "at the midpoint" for me if you think it means something other than "exactly in the middle" of a line segment. And if you do think it does mean something else, please explain your reasons with reference to the document cited, and examples of how "midpoint" means something other than its plain definition. Nick, although I think your differentiation between a "Metro" and "North West Rail Link" is more semantic than real there is a published map of the Metro route which in no way differs from the original "NW Rail" alignment through the Reserve. I have added a reference to it in my re-published segment. And there have been newspaper articles on the exact subject. You have not looked closely enough. For the most recent, check out the Northern district Times from two weeks ago. However, I think citing newspaper articles is not necessary as there are sufficient statements in TIDC documents to establish the fact, on a plain reading, of the location of the facility. In summary I have added a definition, from Wikipedia, of "midpoint". I have added a TIDC official map of the route of the Metro line. I have restored the entry to reflect these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushfire Bill (talk • contribs) 07:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference you cite specifically states that "A location for this facility has not been determined", and that the location won't be selected until further studies are completed. Everything else is your own original research, which is a no-no here, I'm afraid. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick, now you are making excuses for TIDC's own lack of clarity. "Not been determined" is their officialese way of dodging having to announce that Chilworth Reserve will be bulldozed until it is too late to do anything about it. The document states quite clearly the facility must be located at the "midpoint" between the stations. Reasons for picking the Reserve are also supplied in the document: the tunnel is to long to self-ventilate; they want to use Crown land wherever possible. this is the only Crown land within cooee of the "midpoint". We must resort to a fair reading of the document and resolve the seeming ambiguity by realising the indeterminancy refers to a location within a line a couple of hundred yards long, not its general vicinity. This is common sense. In an earlier version (which you excised) I located the spot between two roads at either end of the central part of the Reserve - two hundred metres apart. This reflected the indeterminancy as to the exact spot down to the metre. This lack of precision to the metre is the uncertainty, not that the location is somewhere within the Reserve (which is 13 hectares in area, not a park with a few swings). It's a matter of interpretation of the text.... your reading versus mine. I take them at their word as expressed in the early part of the citation. You use another part of the text to support your point of view. If you don't like my point of view, add a caveat to the article, don't just excise the entire entry. Upon reading the document for the first time I was as confused as you are. So I went and asked them what this passage meant. Did it mean what it said in reference to "midpoint"? They resolved it in favour of my interpretation. However, a reading of the literal meaning of their words does not need the conversation I had, which is why I did not mention it in the article. The conversation was for my own benefit only. I simply quote their own words as expressed in an official document. The conversation was only to resolve the same ambiguity that has apparently captivated you (which is the object of TIDC's exercise, and it has succeeded). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushfire Bill (talk • contribs) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need to interpret the document to that extent: Wikipedia:No original research specifically rules doing so out. Until another source can be provided which supports your interpretation, we need to stick to a strictly literal reading of the reference you've provided, which very specifically states that the location is yet to be determined. I agree that this may be a tactic to get around local concerns, but this really isn't the place to read between the lines. Basically, I think that you're trying to fit a square peg into Wikipedia's round hole: this is an encyclopedia, and not the place to publish your own research and raise concerns. I'd revert you again, but am pretty sure that I would be breaching the three-revert rule by doing so. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand my point, Nick so I'll restate it in another way. My "original research" has no formal connection with the article as I wrote it. Please show me where I mentioned talking to TIDC engineers in the article. You can't, because I didn't mention it. For example, I might be confused as to what Stephen Hawking meant somewhere in A Brief History Of Time. If I was lucky enough to meet him, I ask him, "Steve, what did you mean here?". He explains it to me. He has to because I'm a slow reader. Suddenly the passage in the book becomes clear. I write up the passage strictly in terms of the book, not the conversation. The "original research" is not relevant to the write-up, only as an aid to my understanding of what the words in the book plainly meant, so that I could write it up coherently. In the case of the railway, I read the plain meaning of the words. I was pretty sure what they meant, but I sought further confirmation. The words meant exactly what they said, it was confirmed. Call me a slow reader, if you like. If your interpretation of original research was to be followed to the letter no-one who had ever discussed a subject or book with the originator or author of a work, or had attended his or her lectures and put up their hands to ask for clarification could ever contribute to any encyclopedia. I see no harm in seeking clarification from the author of a work as long as - for encyclopedia purposes - it is the work that is cited, not the conversation. Anyway, before I read your comment I amended my entry to reflect the passage which states the location is yet to be determined. Check the date stamps. As to "raising concerns"... I have read many things in Wikipedia that scare the hell out of me. My concerns are definitely raised. Just about anything on global warming is frightening. Are you suggesting that the authors of those entries don't care about their subject, or don't want to raise concerns? As long as they are being fair and reasonable, and do not let their biases intrude upon their articles, then I suggest it is none of your business what their motivations are. Perhaps it would be a good thing to have disinterested authors wrtie on random subjects, but that is never the case with encyclopedias. They always employ experts, academics etc. with knowledge in the field to write or review entries. Their interests are not random. That is why they are interested in their subjects: personal concerns or preferences.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read the three revert rule. I liked this passage: "Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it." You can't say we haven't discussed this passage. Why don't we wait and see whether TIDC try a revert or two on this entry? Better still, let's see if they amend it.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Importance

I've inserted a section break here, but we still are yet to work out the actual importance of this facility in terms of the whole project. BB needs to read WP:NPOV and be wary of giving undue weight to something that is relatively non-important in the whole scheme of things. In terms of the information published on this compared to the whole project, it's a very minor thing at this point in time. It does not need two large paragraphs— what's in the ventilation and egress facility is not important, for example, and can be left out; the guesswork, as true as it may be, about the midpoint, is also not important. The fact that is it is being built is important, but deserves no more than a couple of sentences, otherwise this article will become a POV fork about a non-notable egress facility written by a local resident as their soapbox on housing prices lowering because of the presence of the line in their area, and not about a metro line. Let's leave the one small paragraph and leave it at that. JRG (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Non-noteable"? "Non-important"? The Metro absolutely cannot be operated without this exact facility. If you had read the reference I cited instead of prattling on about "housing prices" you would have seen the importance TIDC attaches to this facility. The Metro can do without a station or two, or three or four, but definitely not this facility. Of particular relevance is its location, at the midpoint of the tunnel between the unusually widely separated Epping and Cherrybrook stations. For the Metro to exist at all then at least Epping and Cherrybrook will be built (a rail line, to be a "line", must have at least the first two stations, which are nominated as Epping and Cherrybrook, 6km apart). Consequently, the designers say Epping and Cherrybrook must have this facility between them for safety reasons. It must be as near to the midpoint as possible to equalize ventilation pressures, push-pull airflow and to optimize evacuation in case of emergency. This is not guesswork, it is stated in the document cited. The document establishes the length of the tunnel as driving the necessity to build the facility. Clearly, according to the sources: no facility, no Metro. Re: motivation... You are guessing at my motives. There is nothing in my addition to the article or any of the earlier versions that mentions housing prices. Zip. I do not know where you got that idea from, unless it is by inference... which you have repeatedly stated is a sin around here. I could be interested in the habitat of the crested pigeon for all you know. I might be an air-conditioning buff. I might like trains. Pure unadulterated supposition on your part as to my motives. In any case, motivation is immaterial as long as neutrality is observed. Re: Size... The amount of machinery goes to the size of the facility. In fact these sites are larger in surface footprint than some stations, as stations in built-up areas with parking already present (e.g. Macquarie Centre, Nth. Ryde) have, on the surface, only a couple of entrance ways, Metro-style. This place will carry its own staff facilities, plus construction and operational road access, surrounded by a high fence for security (as it, and its millions of dollars worth of equipment, will be mostly unattended). The original author may have thought this facility was unimportant, but that is his opinion. Why is its importance not subject to re-evaluation by other authors?--Bushfire Bill (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Entry has been updated to reflect only facts as presented in TIDC/SydneyLink documents.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks OK to me now. I've removed the heading from that section of the text, however, as single paragraphs shouldn't have their own headings. Is this the only ventilation station to be built on the line - any others should also be mentioned in that para? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have juxtaposed the paragraph on the facility with the one that used to be above it for reasons of contextual flow.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the only standalone facility mentioned in any documents I can find. The rest, if any, would be part of station infrastructure and thus buried in the detail, as the attempt has been to bury this facility...in the detail. There is a certain infrastructure overhead involved in this facility, over and above functional, as it is a greenfields site. It needs to be powered and isolated with a security fence, plus of course access room for actual construction of the building, all of which will add to its surface footprint. Due to the nature, size and function of the equipment housed within the associated blockhouse building - transformers, ventilation, possible fire fighting, egress stairways etc. - the building must be up to 8 metres high, but can come down to six: around about 2 stories high. It will most likely penetrate at least 4 metres into the ground. The size of the pit required is slightly larger than the 20x10 metre footprint of the surface construction. This can be seen from aerial photos, taken at the time, of similar buildings at Lady Game Drive and Delhi Road during construction. The inclusion of a hydrant booster valve (which allows multiple coupling of fire hoses, or the coupling of an additional water pump to boost pressure to a single hose) indicates that fighting fires in the tunnels (and perhaps the bushland) is an anticipated function. It is not mentioned whether there will also be a large water tank for independent fire fighting supply, as there is at Lady Game Drive. There are also creeks running through the Reserve which will need diversion and flood proofing. Construction will take at least 18 months. It is clear that this facility must be built or else the Metro will not get to the first station, Cherrybrook, much less to the rest of the line from Castle Hill out to Rouse Hill. It is therefore a vital piece of infrastructure, as important, if not more so in some cases than any individual station. The Metro can be built without a station or two, but not without this facility. So it's important to the politicians as well as the engineers. OK, so the documents cleverly do not say where it is going (well they define the point but decline to specifically nominate it), but I can assure you with absolute confidence, this is the intended spot. The lack of certainty is not conservative engineers being careful, but a deliberate attempt to bury the issue in ambiguity. Plans are being drawn up to be presented only after final approval. Some of the same people are working on this as worked on Lady Game Drive and they have learnt the lesson of being too open with the public. There was supposed to have been a report by TIDC (similar to the document cited in the article) made back to the Planning Dept. about the changed route, but after 8 months since 3,000 residents' submissions were made, it has not materialised. According to local activists, many submissions objected to this site for the facility, so the lack of a report on the objections is suspicious. Also alternative routes were proposed. These have been clearly rejected, but the first anyone knew of the "no change" policy was from the newspapers, not the (non-existent) formal report they should have received. But let's not go all over that again.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The lack of certainty is not conservative engineers being careful, but a deliberate attempt to bury the issue in ambiguity So it's important to the politicians as well as the engineers. This talk page is about improving the article not a soapbox or personal commentary about a very specific issue close to your heart which you have covered in minute detail. This is an encyclopaedia, if people want more detail than can read the TIDC website or contact TIDC like you did. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You've come full circle Michelle. You spend four days challenging me because you allege I make up detail that isn't there on the TIDC web site. Then you suggest I direct people go to the TIDC web site to find the detail you say doesn't exist. Gotta love that. Alternatively, you say residents should talk to TIDC. You assume I'm a local resident and that if I sweet-talked TIDC, anybody can. They are only your assumptions. I appreciate your helping a newbie just arrived at Wikipedia, writing a first article. The discipline has been useful and has helped me understand the environment here. But you should consider your assumptions as to motivation. They may be wrong.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I never challenged the detail, but challenged your WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE (which others have as well), it is clear to me you're a single purpose account pushing this whole Beecroft issue with original research of conversations to comment on TIDC documents. When the whole railway starts getting constructed they'll be a whole lot of big technical issues and residential areas affected like this one. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My point of view is not neutral. It does not have to be as long as my writing is neutral. The process over the past week has ensured the expression of my point of view is neutral. I don't like this "Thought Police" attitude of yours. My thoughts and my attitudes are my own. Your job is to guard against my introducing them unduly into my text. We have reached a compromise on the text. Let's leave it at that.

As to conversations: I know for a fact your interpretation of the TIDC document is wrong. I have spoken to the authors about the same thing that has fooled you. The reason I spoke to them was that I noted the potential ambiguity between two passages of text. The resolution was substantially what a plain reading of the text allows: the site is known, as defined by the formula given ("midpoint"). The exact placement can be within a hundred metres or so either way.

At the time there was doubt over the route under Beecroft, which had been recently changed from a partially surface route along the Northern Line. It may have taken a different path, away from most of Beecroft/Cheltenham altogether. the word "midpoint" was dependent upon the route. The route issue has now been resolved: the route stays as it was outlined in historical TIDC and current SydneyLink maps. Now that the route has been established, the place for the facility - plus or minus a hundred metres - is determined by simple observation of the midpoint between two stations as located on any TIDC or SydneyLink map. An explanation as to why the midpont is crucial (also cited) clinches the location.

However, I held off writing the passage until the route was established. What could be fairer than that? Anyone knowing the route can establish the midpoint from the passages I cited. It is on the map.

Lastly, please understand that waiting until the railway is started will be too late to inform people along the route. Unless you think TIDC should be the sole arbiters of what goes in the article, then negative aspects of the construction are entitled be mentioned as well as the benficial aspects. The first thing that will be done to construct this facility will be to chop down the trees. Once they are gone (and it would only take a week to do it), the damage is done. As construction of these facilities will take 18 months, the trees will need to be chopped down before the boring machine is even set up at Epping, so that the tunnel and the excavation at the midpoint will dovetail together. There may be other areas affected by the construction, but this is the only totally virgin bushland that will be affected, given the route decided upon. Readers of articles on the Metro surely are entitled to be made aware of this before construction starts, not after it.

Someone concerned with the construction of the railway has written the original article. This was noted well above in this discussion. The article was all upside, no downside. Lightning fast transit times, nice clean stations, fancy route maps: that is definitely a non-neutral point of view designed to push the Metro as a wonderful thing. Why have you not challenged that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushfire Bill (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citated negative information being presented in any article as long as it conforms to NPOV. Comment such as "I have spoken to the authors about the same thing that has fooled you." and reporting it is still original research. Wikipedia only reports things from reliable sources preferably newspaper articles and official reports not conversations. I still stand by my point on single purpose account. And please sign your contributions. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you were waiting for me to make another mistake, Michellecrisp, but that last snipe of yours was unworthy of you (please: no more links to rules pages! I forgot to sign it, went back to do so and encountered an edit conflict. Then the phone rang here, and the rest is history... thank God for the signbot). Show me where I referred to a conversation in my addition to the article, at any stage of its evolution. You raised concerns about the neutrality and detail of my original versions and in the spirit of co-operation I adjusted my entry to its present state. The entry appears to be neutral. What does it take to satisfy you? Wikipedia would not exist without its writers having a diverse range of interests, points of view and agendas. Invigilators like yourself (to whom Wikipedia itself seems to be of prime interest) see to it that the writing is kept as neutral as possible (and for that I thank you), but you cannot second-guess the motivations of contributors. That is none of your business. As for "single purpose account", for God's sake, I've only been here four days, most of it spent trying to make you, Nick and TRG happy. Do you expect me to have written entries on flower arranging, or perhaps optics as well in my other spare waking hours? Wikipedia may be your prime interest in life. It is not mine. If you really want to keep this page NPOV, cover up all traces of my conversations and your nitpicking by deleting the whole discussion thread. I couldn't care less if you did. Your choice. I have placed the entry I wanted to, pared down to an agreed neutrality after rigorous criticism and a steep learning curve, and that's all I ever wanted to do.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep comments to article improvement in line with talk page guidelines. Long comments tend to be skipped over by people.Single purpose accounts tend to be strongly associated with NPOV issues in article contributions (I've encountered this many a time in Wikipedia). This Beecroft issue seems to be occupying all of your time on Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"This Beecroft issue seems to be occupying all of your time on Wikipedia." All FOUR days? You are unbelieveable, Michellcrisp. How many topics have you written articles on since Sunday? How many did you write in your first week here? I see from your user page I am not alone in being stalked by you and that you have recently been cautioned against "inappropriate threats, warnings and accusations ... which degenerated into a talk page argument", which, according to you, is not what talk pages are supposed to be used for. And this was on March 28, the day before you started inappropriately accusing me. Fancy that! Seems you have form, Michelle. The talk page guru telling others what talk pages are for, being cited herself for improper use of a talk page! To use a form of words which is employed to describe "people who are viewed as officious or intermeddling in someone else's affairs": Get A Life--Bushfire Bill (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I proposed this merger. The North West Metro is a now-cancelled proposal that lasted about 6 months, and could be best summed up in a section on Proposed railways in Sydney. A lot has been written on it because it is a news-worthy item presently, but will soon fade from significance. MrHarper (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - I don't think it should be merged as there are significant amount of content and history (including that of the original North West Rail Link) in this article. It's significant enough to deserve its own page. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree: Agree with Pikablu0530 comments. It's a rather long article also seems to me that it's long enough and significant to have it own article. Bidgee (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - MrHarper is trying to promote his own page. Far too long to merge. JRG (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think thats a little unfair. I have raised a proposal and will go with the consensus. MrHarper (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - Oh well, If that's my case, I think we might have to ban Nathan Rees forever as NSW Premier and put him in jail for life sentance of 50 years! Rees will be eligible for parole in 2058!

Image copyright problem with File:Castle Hill Station Platform Proposed.jpg

The image File:Castle Hill Station Platform Proposed.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cancellation of the North West Metro

Based on the latest announcement by the NSW Government with the cancellation of the North West Metro and the reinstatement of the North West Rail Link, this article should be split into two separate articles. The North West Metro article (this article) shall remain as a historical page (much similar to West Metro and CBD Metro pages), and this article is sufficient to remain as its own. This article also carries the Anzac line information that is irrelevant to the new (old) North West Rail Link, thus should remain as a separate article. The North West railway line, Sydney article will be solely used to describe the North West Rail Link and will only contain brief mentions of the North West Metro as part of its History section. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)