Regional NSW public transport 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
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
No they don't. Look at the map again. The map specifically relates to Country Transport service information areas which it marks in dark green. It defines the area in light green (which I agree includes Newcastle, Blue Mountains, etc, etc) as being the 'area covered by other Transport infoline services'. The positioning of the legend Sydney in the sea next to the light green area is, IMHO, coincidental and simply intended to show the location of Sydney city as a point of reference.
Our article Sydney has long defined Sydney as bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the East, the Blue Mountains to the West, the Hawkesbury River to the North and the Royal National Park to the South. We should either stick with that, or change it. Or if there is a genuine case that Sydney is defined differently for public transport matters than it is in general, we need to make sure that difference is carefully explained in the articles, with good detailed cites backing up that distiction. But we cannot just choose different definitions for different articles or templates at whim; that makes WP look inconsistent and silly. -- Starbois (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to contact Joestella to make him aware of the above post, but his account seems to have been deleted back in 2007. Unless somebody objects, I intend to amend this template in line with the definition from the article Sydney -- Starbois (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - for some reason 80% type looks clearer than 90%. I'll change the other ones to that format too if you'd like. JROBBO13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the design issue. The upward link being on the right helps to separate it from the box contents.
This box uses terminology relevant to the public transport system, even where it links to pages with different titles, for example the Port Hacking link.
Metropolitan NSW is a term used by government to include the three major cities and their environs. All other built-up areas are "rural and regional". The scope of these pages is properly the whole metro area, given that the network is integrated that way. 13:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough for point 2, but can you show me where "South Coast to Southern Highlands Line" is actually used (apart from something I previously made up for Wikipedia for an explanation on the CityRail page)? All of the sites on the web list it as Unanderra-Moss Vale line or Wollongong to Bundanoon, which would need to be distinguished from the rail line which doesn't run that way. All the names of the old main south between Picton and Bowral also have the words Loop Line in them too. JROBBO13:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The CityRail network map legend tells of a "South Coast to Southern Highlands" and a "Bowral to Picton (Loop Line)" under "bus services". So what do you think? Leave them as lines, call them bus services, or move them into the bus section? I think they're non-notable unless attached to the old railway articles - the Bowral line is just six buses each way, weekdays only. Joestella13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intercity/Regional?
Shouldn't it be named "Intercity/Regional rail" rather than just regional? According to the CityRail network map only the Hunter Line is classified as "Regional" lines, other are named "Intercity" lines. Pikablu053004:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
