Talk:Northern Busway, Brisbane

Buses Low‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses 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.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Brisbane / Queensland / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Northern Busway, Brisbane 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Brisbane task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-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.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Northern Busway, Brisbane.

Merge Discussion

According to TransLink's network maps and website the Inner Northern Busway is now known as the Northern Busway, and the article should reflect that. Gezzza (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It is probably best to update our pages with a merge to reflect these name changes. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Shiftchange. Sb617 (Talk) 05:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion

I believe the station articles should be merged into the busway article and in future if the station needs its own article then one will be created as per WP:SUMMARY. But at the moment there isn't enough to need an article for each station. d'oh! _talk 08:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is too much content on each individual bus station article for them to be merged into one single article. The article would be far too overlong as a result. Figaro (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All articles, except maybe two, barely contains more than one paragraph. So there is no way for the article to be overloaded. Also if the article becomes overloaded, a new article will be created as per WP:SUMMARY. d'oh! _talk 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King George Square busway station should not be merged because some of the buses using platform 2 travel to Eastern and Southern suburbs, including the South East Busway.

Busway stations in the city area really require their own separate individual pages and should not be merged because of their location - and also because more than one Busway is used by the buses travelling from them. These include the already mentioned King George Square busway station, Queen Street bus station, Roma Street busway station and the Cultural Centre busway station. Figaro (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the name of the article should change to "[PLACE] bus interchange". d'oh! _talk 05:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced a merge would be best either. There are many short railway station articles which shouldn't be merged and the same reasons for that would probably apply to bus stations as well. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most railway stations have enough reliable sources to fill an article, but busway stations on the other hand have barely any reliable sources yet. So they should be apart of the main article until reliable sources come about. d'oh! _talk 05:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NOTE. d'oh! _talk 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a busway is virtually a road, and listing the busway stations on the busway page is akin to listing bus stops on a major road (like Coronation Drive, for instance). Listing the busway stations on the busway pages also gives the busways a higher significance and distinction than that of the busway stations along the busways — something which I do not think is entirely appropriate. Also, more information might be added to the busway station articles in future. I am still of the opinion that the busway stations should retain their own individual pages and not be merged. Figaro (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, busways are road, but they are dedicated bus-only road and the stations are a major part of them, otherwise without the stations its not a busway its a bypass. I do not doubt the articles can be filled with information, but the articles will be filled with information from primary sources and original research as such the articles is not notable to warrant an article for each station. d'oh! _talk 11:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where there is not yet enough information on some bus stations to warrant a separate article for each of them, information about those specific bus station should be kept on an article, or articles, about the Brisbane bus stations themselves. Information about the bus stations should *not* be confined only to the busway articles — one does not check for bus stop information on articles about Brisbane's city streets or Brisbane suburban roads, nor would it be natural for people to check for information about the bus stations on the busway articles (this is *supposed* to be an encyclopedia, where easy access to information is important). While the busways and their articles are important, the busway articles are still about 'roads' (albeit specific for bus-only travel). With regard to WP:NOTE, I do not think that the busways (or their articles) are more notable, or more worthy, or more important, than the busway stations themselves. Figaro (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants bus stop information they go to TransLink, not a encyclopedia. The only information on these articles is "this station is apart of the TransLink system", which is common knowledge and hardly warrant an article about it. You can't compare roads to busways as they are very different things. Bus stops are add-ons to roads, busway stations are built with the busway, and a busway can't function without the stations. Busways may not be notable, but they are more notable than the stations. d'oh! _talk 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus if your are still talking about the four stations you listed above, I agreed with your assessment that they shouldn't be merged, so I am lost on why you are still against this. d'oh! _talk 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn my support for the merge as a sign of good faith. d'oh! _talk 09:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route discussion

The article is confusing in that it discusses both the Northern Busway and bus routes that use the Northern Busway. The article's Route map implies the busway starts at the Cultural Centre. According to the text "Northern Busway starts in a tunnel underneath Albert Street in the city centre adjacent to the Queen Street bus station".

According to Translink's Busway map at http://www.translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/maps/101213_busway-and-train-network.jpg the Northern Busway starts at King George Square station.

I suggest the article be updated so that the text and route map show the Northern Busway starting at King George Square station.

Neddy53 (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]