Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 15 August 2013

Trains: Rapid transit B‑class Mid‑importance

Trains Portal DYK December 7, 2008 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Canada: Alberta B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Yard/garage

Where is the line’s maintenance facility? David Arthur 16:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Located in the northeast of the city near the end of the line is D.L. MacDonald Yard (ETS). Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Did this really happen?

I recall reading somewhere that when one of the stations was built, the platform was about 10 cm too wide, and when they ran the train in for the first time, the edge got sheared off. I'm not really sure if it happened, though. --Alx xlA (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

~Knowing ETS? Who can tell? 198.161.51.61 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a confirmation from a very reliable source, I would consider this an urban legend. The cost of remedying this kind of error would be huge. 74.210.8.230 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Downtown to NAIT Extension

While the current planning on the extension has the NAIT station at Princess Elizabeth Avenue to be a temporary station, I wouldn't be surprised if a line as built doesn't have the station moved north of Princess Elizabeth Avenue onto the NAIT campus. This would be similar to the movement of the South Campus station from 113 Street to its current location, providing better access to expanded University of Alberta facilities at the South Campus location. 74.210.8.230 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Map...

Can someone draw up a map? Is there a volunteer from WikiProject Railways who would volunteer? Colipon+(Talk) 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your best bet would probably be The Port of Authority, who uploaded the last two versions, but by the looks of his contributions list, he isn't active anymore. 117Avenue (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Decided to do it myself. Didn't turn out too badly... but just learning the ropes of Inkscape. Colipon+(Talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to add it to the article, it was already there, just hidden because it was incorrect. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

LRT lines now named

With the official naming of the five LRT lines, is it worthwhile to begin articles for each line? I've created the following as redirects to the Lines section of this article for now.

• Edmonton LRT Capital Line
• Edmonton LRT Energy Line
• Edmonton LRT Festival Line
• Edmonton LRT Metro Line
• Edmonton LRT Valley Line

Hwy43 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No. These are just multiple routes in the same system. We don't have any articles for the bus routes, and the C-Train routes, which are longer than Edmonton's, don't have individual articles. 117Avenue (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there articles for different lines in Toronto, New York City, London, etc.? Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes, but those are all bigger systems. 117Avenue (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if the WP:TWP or elsewhere has a guideline suggesting when lines become notable enough for their own articles. I don't have the wherewithal to find out though. Hwy43 (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that information about these new lines should be added to the main LRT article, in a section about lines. If we get lots of information, we would have a section for each line. If we still get more info, and the section for each line is too long, that's the point we would talk about dedicated articles for each line. So for now, my suggestion is add to the existing article until it becomes too large and the need to split into a different article is clear. —fudoreaper (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Capital Line has more stations than Toronto's Sheppard Line, Montreal's Yellow Line and as many stations as Vancouver's Canada Line and Evergreen Line, all of which have their own page. No where on the Edmonton LRT page is a nice table of stations. The article is long enough, and as the system continues to grow, separate articles will be needed. Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact similar sized systems in the US all have articles for each line including Cleveland, Minneapolis and Houston, with the latter having proposed lines with their own article. Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Like Edmonton, Minneapolis and Houston are newer systems than the other ones mentioned, and do not meet the requirements to split. Your proposed additions will not make this article too long. 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how the age of the system factors in. Let's look at Manila Light Rail Transit System. It opened in 1984 and has two lines (each with their own article). This is a featured article, and as such sets a precedent. We should use this article as a template for Edmonton's. We should also add more information about things like rolling stock and security. Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that age determines how many articles it has, just that the history of a system contributes to its article length. Article length should be used to determine if it should be split, Manila has 75kB, but Edmonton has less than 40kB, at 70kB Calgary should be split first. 117Avenue (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think SIZERULE is necessarily the key deciding factor (it is a "rule of thumb"). It is notability, and I am not familiar with what the requirements for notability would be for the Capital Line or others at this stage, whether in general or within the trains community. Hwy43 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary, no one here was for. I was asking a question and didn't express support, while the other commenter didn't express support either. Hwy43 (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, the discussion wasn't thorough enough to justify a consensus. Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Station naming convention

A couple of station articles were recently renamed by removing the (ETS) because they do not need disambiguation. This does not really make clear what the subject matter is, and I'm not sure the vague suffix (ETS) helps either, and so this led me to investigate what the Edmonton Transit System calls their stations. The format that ETS uses at LRT Stations is "Name LRT Station", and there is a webpage for each station. This official name gives clarity about the subject matter and retains disambiguation and consistency in every name. I hope regular editors give me their thoughts here, because I do not intend to disrupt your good work. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree on good work going on here and good points raised. Support the "Name LRT Station" format. Hwy43 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that all the stations should have a uniform name. Not sure why someone thought they should start changing that. I wonder, though, should we include "LRT" in the name? For example, Century Park could be moved to Century Park Station as it is technically an LRT station and a bus station. Or maybe Century Park ETS Station. Just my thoughts. Thankyoubaby (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you referring to the Century Park Transit Centre. Notice that the adjoining station is referred to as "Century Park LRT Station". We don't need to "make up" names. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then I think the "Name LRT Station" format is fine. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, reading the above, I think "Name Station" is better and more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. "Churchill Station" is more commonly spoken and written than the official "Churchill LRT Station". If disambiguation is required, the format would then be "Name Station (Edmonton)" and it should also resolve the Century Park dual LRT and bus roles. Hwy43 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not the title's job to explain the subject, that is what the article is for. From what I have seen of LRT and subways systems, is the abbreviated name is used (the one you see on a transit map or signs at the station) and the system or line name is used to disambiguate, if needed. 117Avenue (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK then - I can agree with that. But you removed the (ETS) from some titles which disrupts the naming convention. A naming convention like this has nothing to do with disambiguation, it's something that must be consistently applied. It indicates that stations are part of the ETS system, and the suffix should not be dropped. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a consistent naming convention, just like I explained. The article is named after the station, with the "station" removed. However, Misplaced Pages cannot have multiple articles of the same name, so we use disambiguation. The title shouldn't be longer than necessary. 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at London's Bakerloo Line stations, each article is "Name station". Featured Article Manila Light Rail Transit System lists each station as "Name LRT station". Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no "right" answer to this and so I will defer to regular editors. Once you remove the modifier, the title becomes what the station is named after - a street, landmark, community, destination, etc. You would not use "NAIT" alone, even if there was no existing article to conflict with. Appropriate names would be "NAIT (ETS)" or "NAIT LRT Station" or "NAIT station" or anything that says what it is. All railway station articles in Canada, unless they have a proper name, are titled "Name railway station". You would never think of dropping the descriptive portion of those names and the same applies here. Let me say that quality content is much more valuable than debate on the title of minor articles, and I almost regret bringing this up. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondarywaltz (talk • contribs) 21:06, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

I think the best bet would be to go with Hwy43's suggestion of "Name Station" and when another station with the same name exists in another city we add (Edmonton) to disambiguate. Like in the case of Century Park (see: Century Park Station (Shanghai)). Furthermore, when in doubt, check a featured article. I found eight railway stations that are featured articles, all of them include the word "station". Lastly, when riding the LRT, the announcements always say "Next stop: XYZ Station". Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like there isn't consistency around the world with naming railway or LRT station articles. I am starting to feel that "Name LRT Station" is correct, it can both be commonname, and official name, and it is also disambiguation. 117Avenue (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, make my day! Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Gorman and Ellerslie Stations

There is no timeline for these stations to be built, in fact they are quite low on the priority list. I think they can be redirected to the Capital Line article until something further is announced. Agreed? Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• B-Class rail transport articles
• Mid-importance rail transport articles
• B-Class Rapid transit articles
• Unknown-importance Rapid transit articles
• WikiProject Rapid transit articles
• All WikiProject Trains pages
• B-Class Canada-related articles
• Mid-importance Canada-related articles
• B-Class Alberta articles
• Mid-importance Alberta articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages