Talk:Link light rail

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reywas92 (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 6 July 2021 (→‎Requested move 5 July 2021). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

POV and sources

Just a quick explanation for the POV and reliable sources templates I put on the East Link controversy section.

  1. The controversy subsection is unnecessary. The section isn't that large the text covering the "controversy" can easily be worked into the East link section.
  2. The wording in the section is extremely POV and none of it is supported by any reliable sources. As an example the references to "most controversial", "vigorous opposition", and the complete lack of qualifiers in connection to the residents of eastern King County make the opposition appear more widespread than perhaps it really is, especially if there isn't sources to support it.
  3. Only the opposition viewpoint is presented and is perhaps given undue weight.

#The Woodinville Subdivision paragraph may not be applicable to an article on light rail. The line is heavy rail which (from what I understand) isn't compatible with Link Light Rail and the consultants I've read are talking about fixing the rails for a heavy rail system. So perhaps the Sounder commuter rail is more appropriate for that paragraph? And just because I'll probably be going through and rewriting the section, here's a link to the version I'm talking about.[1] --Bobblehead 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I disagree with you on point #1, although perhaps too few controversies were mentioned. I think a controversy section would be extremely useful and could bring some useful commentary and a helpful ecosystem of tangential points to this frankly excessively sanitized and trivial article. I agree with you on point #2 that such a section should be supported by reliable sources and good logic (and certainly any mention of "vigorous opposition" should require the former) but that's more a point about the controversy section being ineffectively done than unnecessary. Furthermore, convoluting controversy and politics (and really they are just two sides of the same coin) in to more generalized sections covering the basics of the subject is distracting and unhelpful, a mistake which is already made in this article (contrary to your point #3) with the Land Use Impacts section; far from removing undue weight, your correction in point #3 is actually increasing undue weight by only mentioning the controversies of one side related to lack of land use support and the SmartGrowth agenda. Ahfretheim (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing of History section

Is there a particular reason why the History section was summarized and child article History of Link Light Rail was created? This article only had 26k of readable prose at the time and wasn't really big enough yet to require the creation of child articles. I would have also preferred that if something had to be calved off that the Current lines and Future lines sections be the ones that were summarized. The lines are the least interesting portion of the article, in my opinion, and by getting rid of all but a few k of the history section this article is too small to be interesting (less than 10k of readable prose). Unless someone is planning on doing a major expansion of this article (ala New York City Subway or Bay Area Rapid Transit), I'm going to be moving the history section back into this article and turning the History article into a redirect. This wouldn't mean the child article couldn't be re-used at a future date, it just isn't needed now. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Although it was only 26k, it was still out of the scale of the rest of the article, and for someone who is just looking up Link Light Rail, it was too much. The original history section of the Link Light Rail article was about twice or three times as long as the history section is of the New York City Subway article, while the New York City Subway is one of the largest and oldest subway networks in the world and the main segment of the Link Light Rail hasn't opened yet. The Bay Area Rapid Transit article, which you also cited, has a history section about as long as the current Link Light Rail history section, and is twice as long as the amount of Link Light Rail that has been approved. Both the New York City Subway and Bay Area Rapid Transit have separate history articles. Therefore, based on the precedent set by the BART article, rated a Good Article under WikiProject Rapid Transit, and the NYC subway article, rated a B-Class article mostly for lack of citations, I thought that it would make sense to summarize the history section and created a "History of Link Light Rail" page. Alexseattle (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedic article and as a result, it is going to focus more on the history of Link Light Rail than it is going to focus on the summarization of the lines. As far as being longer than the comparable sections in the NYC Subway article and BART section... If you'll notice the rest of those articles are also much, much longer than the current article. NYC has 33kb of readable prose, while BART has 36kb of readable prose.. This article currently has less than 10. As I said.. Unless someone is going to do a serious expansion of the rest of the article, then this article simply is not large enough to justify having a child article created from it. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed working on a restructure of the page. But I want to emphasize that just because a page isn't very long doesn't mean you should have a history section that takes up more than half the page just for the sake of making the page longer. The most important thing here is not making the page longer, but making it more readable. Alexseattle (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of History of Link Light Rail and the History Section

At 09:55, July 15, 2011 Jay8g proposed the merging of the History of Link Light Rail article and the History section. I support this change. ~ Atomic Taco (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Good Article?

I am finishing up an overhaul to this page, and am planning on nominating it for Good Article status. Does anyone have any suggestions to get it there?

Thanks,

-- Alexseattle (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about this section -

Stations in Polluted, Inhospitable Areas

The assertions of careful route choice to facilitate population growth are pure fiction. The tract and stations are located in the region's most polluted and inhospitable areas. Few people want to live next to the deadly chemical off-gassing of the freeway next to every train station. The rates of highest cancer incidence drawn on a map would match the train stations exactly. The result was a wasted opportunity to remake Seattle as a mass- transit viable city.

- Has no footnotes to back this up - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stachman (talk • contribs) 07:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route Map

I would like to change the route map in the infobox back from the to-scale one to a wiki-style diagram. Although the current map is very stylish, it is too large for the page, and the font for the station names is too small to be readable. Also, having the wiki-style diagram enables the stations to be wiki-linked to their own pages. If no one objects within the next few days, I'll change it. -- Alexseattle (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Besides, the latest version of that map has a few errors in it. IDS/C station is incorrectly named Union Station and Othello Station is in the wrong location (should be further south). Oranviri (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Perhaps a more geographically accurate map could go near the route description sections of the Central Link and Tacoma Link pages, but, in light of its geographic and cartographic errors, we should definately change it back to Wikipedia's standarsd. YB3 (t) 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a (self made) geographically accurate map of the Link light rail routes with approved and planned extensions. at [2] I also have a to scale linear diagram of Central Link at [3] Oranviri (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Link Light Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Link Light Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Link Light Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: RM has been going on for 3+ weeks. There's consensus for the first and third proposed moves, and the second move has been suggested to be premature. RickyCourtney is essentially saying, not COMMONNAME yet. Suggesting that other pages with "Link Light Rail" be moved accordingly as well. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Sound Transit has updated its branding guidelines and no longer uses the terms we have used for Wikipedia articles. Light rail is not part of the Link name, with most news articles nowadays referring to the system as "Link light rail" or simply "Link". Additionally, "Central Link" refers to the project that built the initial 14-mile segment from downtown to the airport, and now that the line is extended to the University of Washington, Sound Transit has dropped the use of "Central" in its signage and online materials (e.g. schedules [referring to it as just "Link"). The May 2016 maps show that Sound Transit is already phasing in its "Red Line" branding despite the "Blue Line" (East Link) not opening until 2023. I'm all for alternative titles ("Red Line (Link light rail)", "Red Line (Sound Transit)", "Red Line (Seattle)"), but this change is long overdue. SounderBruce 03:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the category some; lot of overcapitalization there for sure. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those categories need work. A few of the articles there do require capitalization (especially the extension pages, where it was argued here that it is more appropriate to use capitalization). SounderBruce 22:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Light Rail is not part of the system name, but a description. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My only comment is that while "Central Link" is certanly depreciated, it almost seems a bit premature to rename the page "Link Red Line". Problem is that outside of transit insiders, very few people use the term "Red Line," in fact, Sound Transit simply calls it "Link light rail" on it's website. That said, colored lines are certainly the direction Sound Transit appears to be heading and for the long run this is the most logical name. --RickyCourtney (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I can wait on the Red Line designation (though for now the colors will be changed to match the maps). SounderBruce 22:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Train details needed.

Details of train design, passenger capacity, operating speeds, etc., are needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.209 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Link light rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Link Extension Update

So im not sure how to update but the hilltop Extention should be placed under the "Under construction" area based off the website link https://www.soundtransit.org/Projects-and-Plans/Hilltop-Tacoma-Link-Extension/Project-updates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach143 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation of events

WP:CRYSTALBALL says that things that haven't happened can't be assumed to happen. The wording in this article is misleading, and needs to be changed. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. "Later projects will expand the system to cover the metropolitan area from Everett to Tacoma..." to "Later projects are expected to expand the system to cover the metropolitan area from Everett to Tacoma..."Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop playing dumb. No one is being misled about anything. No part of that section says the future tense may not be used because we live in the present. People are smart enough to interpret the word "will" as a reasonable assumption that it is happening in the future under current plans. Sure, North Korea could nuke Seattle and this expectation won't happen, or Sound Transit could decide on modifications, but this is what reliable sources say will happen. This is not original research, this is not speculation, this is not a rumor, which is what Crystal precludes. Should 2024 Summer Olympics be changed to read "Paris is expected to become the second city to host the Olympics three times," "Most of the Olympic are expected to be held in and around Paris," "skateboarding is expected to debut at the 2020 Summer Olympics" because we can't assume anything will happen? Thanks for wasting my time. Reywas92Talk 22:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Will" is problematic, given the previous history of Link. I've been trying to use "scheduled" or "planned" in context with projects that have not been through the full development cycle and are thus liable to further changes. Who knows what I-976 will do to everything. SounderBruce 02:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
don't know about the 2024 summer Olympics, but the "2020 Summer Olympics"... -MJDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more independent sources

right now, 15 of the 28 references in this article are sourced from Sound Transit directly, their blog-style media outlet, or a press release. While this is not disallowed, there should be an effort made to add secondary and tertiary sources as per WP:PRIMARY. -MJDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 July 2021

Link light rail → Link (light rail) – For consistency with similar articles NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 03:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Perhaps Sounder commuter rail should also be discussed in this RM, as it has the same title structure. 162 etc. (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as Sound Transit and local media sources usually do use the full term "Link light rail" rather than shortening to Link without prior context. We should follow suit. SounderBruce 08:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SounderBruce, the name of the system as used is "Link light rail". Reywas92Talk 07:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Link_light_rail&oldid=1032233524"