Talk:Public transport in Sydney

This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on Watsons Bay ferry services. View the page revision history for a list of the authors.

This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on North Shore & Western Line. View the page revision history for a list of the authors.

This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on Inner West and Leppington Line. View the page revision history for a list of the authors.

This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on Manly ferry services. View the page revision history for a list of the authors.

Split this article up?

Swept in from the pub

May I please split this article up. This is getting too long, and I'm not even 20% done with this. Probably I'll create a new one only for train, ferry and light rail/tram. Please leave your thoughts below. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Large city transport as distinct articles....?

I note this article:

Using_Sydney's_public_transport

I previously wrote a fairly extensive distinct article on London's Tube network, before being advised to merge it back into London.

I thought transport stuff went in the Get Around section of the city/region article as opposed to it's own article?

Is it time to revisit this guideline? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

See also Bay Area Public Transit Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not something we want to encourage, but once a Get Around section reaches a certain length threshold, it might make sense to break it off like this, leaving a brief summary in the destination article. We should determine if doing this is desirable and come up with a consensus on what the threshold would be. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

In most places where public transport sections grow large enough to warrant an article of its own, public transport is essential for visiting the place, so the net result is that travellers have to read two articles instead of one, with some duplication and risk of updates in only one of the two places. I suppose that was the reason to merge back the London subarticle. This is different from a travel topic such as, say, Roman heritage in Rome: while most people will visit some of the relevant attractions, not all visitors to Rome are interested in the in-depth descriptions. –LPfi (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

For large cities, we have already decided that we don't want to have all of the information in one article. It is easier for readers if we organize the information in several articles so they can find the information in articles that are relevant to them. We break large cities into districts, and put airport information into separate articles, with the key points summarized in the main article. Allowing separate public transport articles with the key points summarized in the main article is a logical extension of this approach.

In some large city articles, we make the reader scroll through screen after screen of detailed information on how to get around before they get to the See and Do listings, which are what help the reader decide if they want to go. Not everyone takes public transit, even in London, Paris and New York. Many visitors use taxis and ride-hailing services exclusively. Ground Zero (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sydney is already too long and my new article is meant to cover connecting areas, and basically have the key points but a lot longer and would eventually be in depth enough for the reader to not search it up. Additionally, the lack of a map with bus, train, ferry, light rail and coach makes it harder for the traveller. SHB2000 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

P.s I don't think having 4 large chunky tables is ideal in Sydney —The preceding comment was added by SHB2000 (talk • contribs)

Those tables are the kind of thing we tend not to use on Wikivoyage. They can be hard to keep up to date – I typically link to the official schedule or map instead. Information about how to get to specific attractions should be mentioned in the relevant listings. If we remove the tables and edit for conciseness, most of the rest of the information in the article would fit fine in Sydney#Get around, I think. But if others feel this is useful as a separate article, I don't feel strongly about it.

A map or two would definitely be a good idea and can be included in Sydney#Get around. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There are two problems with that:

1. There is no map with all the up to date info

2. It's hard to find a large map that has both ferry and something else.

I'll be sure to update it regularly as I'm a person who frequently takes Public Transport, additionally, I'm well aware of the new services in the upcoming 4 years. SHB2000 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this article needed?

I don't really understand the value of this article. Using Sydney transport is IMHO very straightforward (tap your credit card, done), and listing out all the train lines seems much more like Wikipedia territory than Wikivoyage. Jpatokal (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly feel free to just merge it. I created this article when I was quite new to this site; don't think much can be salvaged from this. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)