Talk:Onehunga West Line

Merge with Onehunga West Line

Merging this page with Onehunga West Line seems to go against the consensus for the Eastern Line discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eastern_Line_(Auckland) - was this merge discussed and I missed it, or is this being done prematurely? pcuser42 (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, @Nick Mitchell 98 there hasn't been any discussion and consensus on merging this page, and I don't see any reason why this article would be different from the consensus on the other pages which was to not merge them, keeping articles on the old lines separate from articles on the new lines MangoMan11 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I see the merge was redone again, again without an attempt to discuss. @Amakuru: this should have been discussed before merging, as it goes against existing consensus. pcuser42 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amakuru you should not have made this move, please undo ASAP. Tenshi noted on the request that it was clearly controversial and did not qualify. The fact that you think "the new content is clearly pertaining to the same line and doesn't warrant a new article" is irrelevant as it is still controversial. Furthermore, there has already been a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eastern_Line_(Auckland) where there was a very strong consensus that it is just not true that the content pertains to the same line. Tenshi noted that it was controversial, the fact that I had reverted it indicates it is controversial, and the discussion started here is a clear indicator that it is controversial MangoMan11 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@MangoMan11: per the WP:ONUS policy you need to demonstrate that you have consensus for a new article before splitting one out. The press release from Auckland Rail at is clear that the Onehunga West Line is basically a continuation of the Onehunga Line, they are the same thing, and there is no call for creating a permanent stub just covering a new service pattern on an existing line. Please stop reverting this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amakuru you have appear to have misunderstood the situation. This is not a split. This is the existing article about the old line (Onehunga Line), that was never about the new line (Onehunga West). With the network being completely changed, there was discussion about whether the existing articles for the lines should just be straight up converted into the new lines (or merged with the new line articles if an article on the new line existed), which culminated in the AFD discussion that I previously linked. The consensus there was that they are not the same thing and that the articles for the old lines should be kept in place. Nick Mitchell 98 then tried to boldly merge this article with a new article that had previously been created about the new line, which is the one that I reverted because it went against consensus

You appear to think that you are stopping a split without consensus from happening, but what you are actually doing is enabling a bold, controversial merger that goes against an existing consensus. The best thing you can do is undo the mess MangoMan11 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

It's clearly a split. There was a long-term existing article, and you wish to create a new one on the same basic topic, with slightly different parameters. My main point is that I don't think the previous Eastern Line discussion automatically settles this case. Based on the evidence, the Onehunga West Line is much more directly a continuation of the existing Onehunga Line than the East West Line is of the old Eastern Line, so splitting this material out into a separate article needs to be justified on its own merits. If others disagree, then let's see the evidence on which you wish to split it, and establish consensus on whether these are genuinely distinct topics warranting separate articles. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

My intent behind boldly merging the articles for the Onehunga West Line/Onehunga Line and South City Line/Southern Line was that the new routes can be argued to be extensions or rerouting of the previous lines, instead of completely new lines worthy of separate articles, similar to how they’ve evolved over the years before the City Rail Link opened. I suggest the new articles contained very little information that was not already better summarised in the original articles. If a discussion is the best path forward, I’m open to contribute. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Given that the topic of pre and post CRL lines had already been indicated to be controversial by the discussion about the other lines and the fact that there was also a discussion at the WP:NZ noticeboard that concluded that all four existing line article should be kept for historical purposes, a discussion needs to take place to build consensus for any merger. This also applies to the revert that you just made on the Southern Line article. A consensus is required for your merger, not for my revert of your undiscussed merger.

Once this mess gets undone, any merger will require a discussion. Although, given the two existing discussions (particularly the one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Renaming_articles_for_auckland%E2%80%99s_city_rail_link_this_sunday), it is likely to not be worthwhile. The consensus would likely be the same: the historical Southern Line, Onehunga Line are all notable topics in their own right that need to be called as such. Anything else would have to be around whether articles on the new lines should exist yet and, even if there was a consensus to merge, it would still be towards Southern Line, Onehunga Line, etc being the article names, with the new lines having to be sections in those articles (not the main subject of those articles) if they do not merit their own articles MangoMan11 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amakuru I am not trying to create a new anything. All I am trying to do is restore this article to be about the Onehunga Line, not the new line, in line with the AFD consensus that the old Auckland train line articles should be kept the same, as they are the existing notable topics. Whether the new lines are notable enough (yet) for their own articles is a separate topic entirely.

It is not a split. Nick Mitchell 98 even stated that it was a merge. Both articles were existing until you came along. This one was the Onehunga Line article until you moved it, and it has existed since 11 June 2015. The other one ([]) that was about the new Onehunga West Line has existed since 14 September of this year and was create afresh (albeit controversially), not split from this article.

Even if the consensus did not apply here, merging it would require consensus or for it to be uncontroversial, which is not the case for either. Your role here is as the technical mover, which requires it to be uncontroversial. pcuser 42 had already contested it on here before you made the move. I had already reverted the change, which indicated that it was controversial. And Tenshi even told you that it was contested. The fact that we are even discussing this shows that it does not qualify for the move that you made. Regardless of whether you think it should only be one article, or even somehow think it's a split, what matters is that the proposed action was contested, did not qualify for WP:RM/TR, should not have been done, and needs to be undone MangoMan11 (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The proposed content at "Onehunga West Line" was added this week and based on the content we can see at , it substantially duplicates the content of the previous Onehunga Line, which is why I regard it as a split. The stations are by-and-large the same, the routing is similar, the only new addition would be the service pattern, and the fact that it's been rebranded. It doesn't warrant a new article just for a service pattern. Wikipedia works based on reliable sourcing and evidence, and I'm yet to see evidence to suggest the renamed line is a significantly different thing from the old one, beyond a new timetable and a slight difference in route. If you can present that evidence here then we can consider it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I, and probably several others from WP:NZ, would have had several reasons to dispute that (particularly the claim about the stations and routing being the same), if there had been a discussion on this. But that's besides the point, because the actual issue here is that there hasn't been a discussion to support a merger

I think we've ended up with a misunderstanding between you and I here, partly driven by the way it was framed when it was requested at WP:RM/TR which would've been what you saw first, but which I would describe as fairly inaccurate.

But, in the interests of a simple resolution without needing to get into all those details, the main point that I've been trying to get across is that it is an undiscussed merger that is not uncontroversial and should not have been made. It therefore needs to be undone. If you or Nick Mitchell 98 think there needs to be a a discussion about a merger, you are welcome to formally start one. However, given our previous WP:NZ discussions on this topic (which also includes this one about all four lines that I forgot to mention earlier) it would probably need to be around whether to merge the new article into this one rather than the other way around. Regardless of whether a separate article on the new lines should exist or not, this article remains as Onehunga Line (not Onehunga West) as the topic that is more definitively notable (and which most sources are about) and the one that we agreed in the notice board discussion should be kept in place. You are questioning whether the new line merits it's own article, which doesn't justify moving the existing article to have the name of the new one that you have questioned the notability of. The move needs to be undone as this article needs to still be Onehunga Line and the other one still needs to be Southern Line (Auckland), regardless of the merits of the merger. Are you able to do that, or do we need to take this further MangoMan11 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi again @MangoMan11:, the issue as I see it is that you keep referring to the merge as "undiscussed", but in reality the earlier creation of the overlapping article was also undiscussed, and the "merge" that's been carried out since then is simply reversing that. We had a perfectly good article on this line until this week, when a second article was added covering substantially the same subject. That's why I'm asking you to supply some evidence and sourcing as to why these should be treated as separate topics. I mentioned a source above, , which says that "The Onehunga Line is now the Onehunga West Line (O-W)", which strongly suggests this is fundamentally a renaming and that the latter is a continuation of the former, even if they operate under a different name and pattern. So, again, what is the sourcing and evidence for treating these as separate topics? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amakuru Look, I've tried to resolve this with you, and avoid escalating things, but it is clear now that you are not listening to what I'm saying.

Imagine a scenario where a major change happens in a city, that affects multiple Wikipedia articles because of old things getting replaced by new things. Something like local government reforms that sees old councils replaced with new ones, or a rail network refresh. The local Wikipedia community has, not one, but two discussions on how to respond to these changes and comes to a general consensus on not replacing the existing articles on the old topics.

A user later tries to boldly merge articles on the new topics into some of the existing articles (which were meant to be the ones that are left untouched), and gets reverted, with users telling them that there is no consensus on that specific merger and that it goes against an existing consensus on the area generally, and that the user needs to discuss it if they want to make it happen.

However, a technical move request still exists, and a user notes on the request that the revert shows that it is controversial and contested, and not eligible for a bold merger + move

An administrator ignores this, as well as the revert and talk page discussion, and goes ahead with the move anyway. Two users point out to the administrator that the merger and move is undiscussed and goes against an existing consensus. However, the administrator refuses to undo it, and instead chooses to argue about why they personally think the consensus is wrong, while demanding that users prove why it shouldn't happen, despite the fact that there is that existing consensus that provides the onus.

That's what you're doing here.

You don't get to just veto an existing consensus and go ahead with a merge + move, just because you personally think the consensus is wrong. The proper procedure is that, if you think an existing consensus is wrong, you challenge it through an AFD discussion, not by using your admin rights to hold the pages hostage in the form that you think they should be in, while demanding that other users prove what was already agreed upon in the existing consensus.

You cited WP:ONUS earlier. But we've already provided that onus in our discussions on the WP:NZ noticeboard and in the AFD discussion (which, even though it only had the western and eastern lines tagged in it, did end up being about the entire rail network and new lines). The onus is now on you, not us, to challenge that consensus if you think it's wrong, which needs to be done by starting an AFD discussion.

You insist that your actions are justified because you consider it a split, rather than a merge, despite the rest of us considering it to be a merge. A split is when content from an existing article is spun out and separated into it's own article. The Onehunga Line article did not already have substantive content on the Onehunga West line contained in the article, only a brief mention that it would be replaced by it. The new article was created afresh as a separate topic. It doesn't matter how old the article is, it's not a split. The creator of it, considered it to be a new article on a new topic, not a split, which was generally accepted, and is why it did not need a split discussion. If you think we are wrong and that it is the same topic, you still need to start an AFD discussion to justify why you think that is the case, you can't just boldly merge it.

You insist that it's just renaming the existing articles to their new names, because you personally think that the new lines and the old lines are the same thing. Well, the existing consensus is that they are not the same thing and the existing articles should remain with the same names that they've always had. If you think that's wrong, you need to challenge it by starting a move discussion, not by what you've done here.

Before you try arguing that the existing consensus doesn't apply here, I consider it to apply and so does pcuser42. We directly discussed the Auckland rail lines as a whole. If you think it doesn't apply, then you need to start an AFD discussion to justify why it doesn't apply, and why this one specifically is different and needs to be merged. It all comes to the same answer, you can't just do what you've done, you need to undo it and start a formal discussion if you have a problem with it

I'm sure that this behaviour is uncharacteristic of you, and that you're just making a mistake. We all make mistakes and it's ok to make them, so long as you acknowledge the mistake and fix it. I made the mistake of trying to undo your page move because I didn't realise that it was something that only users with page mover rights could do. Once I realised the mistake, I stopped and tried to get you to undo your undiscussed (against consensus) move instead. You need to do the same: recognise your mistake, back down, and fix it by undoing the merger + move. If you think the existing consensus is wrong, you need to start a formal discussion. Are you going to undo it, or do I need to escalate this? MangoMan11 (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2026 (UTC)