Jump to content

Talk:METRORail

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


Untitled

[edit]

Maybe images shouldn't be tabled, but the layout is broken on my computer without it... RADICALBENDER★ 04:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Article Move / Merge Proposal

[edit]

I have created a proposal at: User:Johntex/Proposal. I hope you will go there to comment on it, but I paste a copy here for your convenience:

I propose:

(1) We create a new article titled Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy

(2) We move the content from Houston_Chronicle#Light_Rail_memorandum_controversy to that page and leave only a sentence or two there to point to the new main article. This is advantageous because:

(2.1) The overall Houston Chronicle article is unbalanced because there is more information about a few controversies concerning the paper than the paper itself - however, the paper is not famous for these controversies so this is misleading.
(2.2) This controversy is largely or completely a thing of the past and to keep it occupying such a prominent position on the main article of an ongoing business concern is particularly unencyclopedic.

(3) We move the content from Texans for Public Transportation to Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy and delete Texans for Public Transportation. I believe Texans for Public Transportation is not sufficiently notable to merit an article here because:

(3.1) The group was a single purpose organization, organized for a particular purpose in 2003
(3.2) They have not had a wide impact nor achieved sufficient notability to merit their own article, as evidenced in part by the low number of hits found by searching for "Texans for Public Transportation" on Google (0)[1], Altavista (4 - including 1 at Wikipedia)[2]. I know Rangerdude does not like Google counts, but it is completely reasonable to conclude that a PAC in this Internet-driven era that gets only 4 hits did not achieve much impact.
(3.3) Due to their small impact, there is little we can say about them. What we can say about them is really relevant to one specific controversy concerning METRORail
(3.4) They do not have any presence today so they are not likely to get more interesting in the future.

(4) We move the content from Texans for True Mobility and delete Texans for True Mobility. My reasoning is similar to Texans for Public Transportation. Although Texans for True Mobility does have an active web page, and is slightly better known (237 hits on Google[3], 264 on Altavista[4]), that is still a paltry number of hits for an organization striving to make an impact on events in one of the America's largest cities. There does not seem to be anything that needs to be said about them that cannot be covered in the new article I am proposing.

In order to keep all comments together, I hope you will put your feedback at: User:Johntex/Proposal. Thank you. Johntex 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I am of the belief that for the time being we should work out the remaining issues on the Houston Chronicle page before merging any article or moving them to a second page. Right now that may only complicate things further, though in the future it may be an option. Furthermore, there is more to be said about TTM and TPT than the Houston Chronicle memorandum issue. IOW, some of the information currently present on this article does not neatly fit into an article specific to the Houston Chronicle. Thus I would propose (1) an article specifically on the Chronicle's memo scandal and (2) an article on the METRORail expansion campaign of 2003 with subsections containing the info on TTM and TPT and redirects from TTM/TTP to the respective locations in that article. Again, I do not think it is yet timely to start this reorganization with other things unresolved though so hold off for the moment. As a second note, I will mention that I do not see how this article proposal substantially impacts the METRORail article itself other than to change around the links pending the outcome we decide. Rangerdude 01:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

University Line color

[edit]

What color is the University Line?? Georgia guy 00:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the source, Orange or Blue. Oliver kanjo (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Crash Rate

[edit]

I believe that the links to the political web site, "Wham-Bam-Tram Collision Counter" should be removed. The crash rate should be mentioned but the neutrality needs to be looked at further. --Texaswebscout 12:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced link. You ask about neutrality in a discussion setting, but remove the link BEFORE it is discussed. Be patient...

Urban909

I thought links do not have to be NPOV. WhisperToMe 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that removing before there is discussion creates problems. i also believe RJN/Sarbox/Texaswebscout may be a possible sockpuppets (multiple accounts) RJN/Sarbox sure had a quick revisions from mine. all within 3 or so minutes from a supposedly "two" different users...convienent

Urban909

I am not Texaswebscout or Sarbox. It is called keeping an article on the watch list. That is how I know when you edit and will be watching all of your dubious edits from now on.-RJN 00:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC) User:Urban909 has violated the 3RR within 24 hours. -RJN 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, if i "should be blocked" for the 3rr, then shouldn't sarbox and texaswebscout as well? just curious why YOU are singling me out. how about this, seeing that you are so caught up in taking away so called NPOV, maybe you should remove the entire "controversies page" because, if you remove the "wham bam" (note the next word) CONTROVERSY, then will you calm down a little? i mean, that section has it all, Texans for True Mobility, Texans for Public Transportation, and even something from the houston chronicle, which, if i might add all seem along the same lines as the "wham bam" addition...

Urban909

I have restored the article to revision made on 00:26, 19 December 2005 WhisperToMe . Are you satisfied now Urban909 aka 70.XX. –RJN 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes i am. and trying to be sneaky with the 70.xx is nonsequential. i sometimes forget to log in. good to see that UH has raised the bar...

Urban909

It's just when an editor places a tag (regardless of what it is), you shouldn't just take it down without explanation and discussion. I don't know what goes on here since I don't bother to edit or even read this article. The reason why I reverted your changes because you keep deleting things people put that you dont like. Now, I dont agree with the tag that Texaswebscout had put, but that doesn't mean I am going to take it off. That tag was put there to resolve a dispute on the talk page. Instead, you never resolve anything on the talk page or leave an edit summary. You just go ahead and quietly take it off thinking that other people don't click the "dif" to see what you have done, especially when you don't leave an edit summary. You have taken other people's work off simply because you dont like what they did many times, including mine. You used to take things out of the Houston article without explanation back when you first signed up for an account. To this day, you still delete other people's edits without explanation or taking it to the talk page. I never delete anyone's work even though I dont like some of it! RJN 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am Texaswebscout, I am a real person. I lived in the Houston area all my life and I know people worked on the METRO project. I am no longer in the Houston area. From what I understand, the tag needs to stay on the page until everyone agrees on the page. --Texaswebscout 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to add that I've lived in the Houston area my entire life and have never before heard METRORail referred to as the "Wham-Bam-Tram". --Blathersby 11:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard people calling that, but only after visiting the action america website (which seems like it's inactive). the MetroRail's safety has improved considerably, so maybe it should all be listed as past tense?

Hourick 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to article

[edit]

The link to the article at the Houston Chronicle shows a page full of gibberish (I believe the technical term is garbage.) There are links to other articles, some of which seem to discuss METRORail safety. I would like to see links to the specific data crticizing METRORail's safety record.

Bias

[edit]

I removed the Bias page tag and just added the section bias tag to the sections I believe are somewhat bias. I believe we need to present both sides of the issues. There was a lot of controversy around the METROrail partly because Houston loves a good old fashion scandal. A lot of the people against it where against it because they where afraid of bigger goverment. People love to drive there cars in Houston and anything that may encroach on that right makes them mad. --Texaswebscout 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did some playing around with editing the two sections that has been flagged as bias. i HOPE this will clear some things up and make everyone satisfied with the section. Urban909

It is not really just the bias, the article needs to be cited especially controversial sections. Please cite the article with citations from credible sources. --Ben 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. 173.24.181.55 (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old argument, but any controversies need to be put into it's own section while the "biased" sections be neutral. In this manner, it would be easier reading and our tinfoil hat wearers can have their own section.--Hourick (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for map proposal

[edit]

I would like to see a map of the METRORail system drawn for the article. If anyone can do one, please feel free to do it. MattFisher 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on one should be done 2/8/2006, --Ben 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map Done, Needs a little more work to make in look just right in svg but basic done. --Ben 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the map? Theblindsage (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for ridership and overall neutrality

[edit]

I would like to see some more information on the ridership and success of the METRORail system on a riders per mile basis for the article. I think that the information is available, but didn't want to add it without some additional thoughts. Thanks! --Jsabs 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds useful to me, please add the info if you can find it. If you need help adding it, please post back here with what you've found. Thanks! Johntex\talk 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Financial Information Found on METRORail Website

[edit]

Why is there no financial information published on the METRORail website?

An informal analysis of a North Carolina metropolitan bus service which is moving strongly toward light rail as well(TTA) [5] I did several years ago showed cost per ride of $50! In 2005 the fare receipts were $1.5M, and the expenses related to the Board of Directors was $1M. One wag commenting on a light rail system located elsewhere noted that with X number of riders per year the cost of the system in his area was equivalent to leasing each rider a new Jaguar automobile every three years. A review of the Washington D.C. area light rail seemed to show reasonable numbers, but the cost and subsidy per ride were still not broken out.

Not surprisingly, this N.C. information was not available directly, but derived by dividing the revenues from all sources (fares were a minimal portion) by the number of rides for the year. Public transportation can be a great convenience, but astronomical cost to the public can only be a drain on the economy and on important uses like schools and roads. How can this cost be minimized with no information available?

With billions of dollars in the till and no accountability, these organizations really need to be independently audited on an annual basis. Tobyw 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postoak 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is off-topic about the title and my reference to similar projects that also try to hide the very high cost of travel on light rail? Reference to other light rail and mass transit was given as an price example of similar projects.--Tobyw (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated latest Metro Release of Crash rate with link.

[edit]

I added a sentence and cite (a whole sentence!), but am not confident enough or think it's proper to put the crash late on a yearly graph. If additional wording is needed, please do so.

Thanks--Hourick 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Main Street Line"

[edit]

Whoever keeps putting that probably needs to stop. That isn't what the Red Line is called. METRO has tried correcting this, too. It is a common misconception among people (especially those against rail who like to say that "it doesn't even run on Main Street" to make METRO sound stupid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxTrillvillexX9 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Line Map

[edit]

Undue weight

[edit]

Undue weight has been given to the system's future expansion. Over half the article is taken up with details of future plans. If I wrote an article about New York City, for example, the focus would be on what exists rather than what will. I propose moving details of the future expansion to METRORail 2011-2020 expansion and leaving behind an outline here.--Loodog (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Undue Weight

[edit]

I wouldn't. I would just move the expansion plans (new stations and new lines, etc.) to their own pages. It's simple. Someone needs to get the route maps up on the other lines because who ever edited it left it looking sloppy. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go, I've trimmed about 4K off the article, removed copious redundancies, and given the future plans weight more commensurate with their current importance. I think it does wonders for readability.--Loodog (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some minor editing in relation to that. all in all, the page is MUCH better. IAH777 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsertion of redundant material

[edit]

Trill, what's up? You reinserted the section I deleted about "Light Rail lines". That section was ridiculously redundant and absurd considering there's only one line. Compare it with the intro:


Why dilute the article and write the same thing twice? Why give a sole line its own section that says nothing the lead doesn't? More importantly, why write about lines not scheduled to be running for 4 years as if they already exist? Future expansion is already covered below.--Loodog (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Line

[edit]

Because there is a Red Line page. How else are we suppose to link to the Red Line page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxTrillvillexX9 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redundant article anyway since METRORail is the Red Line. It contains the exact same information. I move to merge.--Loodog (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i second merging the two pages. IAH777 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm coming into this little debate, but why not just offer a brief summery on the redline on the summery page and go into more detail on the Redline Page? this isn't unprecedented. Chicago's L include a list that includes all of the lines, but offers a separate page (example: orange line) along with individual stations. While it's still a bit too soon to go into much depth with the other lines, I think it currently is time to set a organizational standard at the moment or else we risk some major rewrites and confusion in the future.--Hourick (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merge. It's excessive to have separate pages for the system and the line when the system only is one line; there will be plenty of time to separate if needed should other lines come to be built. David Arthur (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support DavidArthur's argument and sentiments.--Loodog (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And done. The pages have been merged. When and if other lines are created, this article may warrant more subarticles.--Loodog (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. Look at the page now. Messy. Having the Red Line page with the stations on there was much better. The current METRORail page could still have: a brief summary, rolling stock, future expansion, and controversies. It looks pathetic now. Hell, even the Charlotte LYNX page is much, much better. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no clear division between ‘Metrorail’ and ‘Metrorail Red Line’; there would either be no consistent principle defining what belong to each page (why is the rolling stock or the crash-rate controversy more relevant to the brand name than to the line?), or we would have to create one, which would be tantamount to original research. David Arthur (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's at least model it after Charlotte's LYNX page. They did a great job with that. Even the Minneapolis residents have made their light rail page (which has one line like Charlotte) much better and more organized. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Be Bold if there's something you don't like. The only thing we're agreeing against is the creation of a Red Line section while no other lines exist. As for the LYNX page, I do rather like it, except that they also gave an entire section to their only line. Fixing time...--Loodog (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of "future expansion" section

[edit]

Trill, I noticed you bumped "future expansion" to ahead of "crash rate". I object to this change for three reasons:

  1. Again places emphasis on something that does not exist yet over something that does, the exact trend I wanted to reverse ever since the days when the "future" section was over half the article.
  2. It's unnatural organization by "temporal" considerations, i.e. 1. This is the system today, 2. This is the planned system for 5 years from now, 3. This is the crash rate today.
  3. It's inconsistent with LYNX Rapid Transit Services, Green Line (MBTA), LACMA, St. Louis MetroLink, and TheRide transit pages.

--Loodog (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removal of "crash Section"

[edit]

I believe this section needs to be removed because it isn't relevant to the article. After looking up quite few of the light rail articles in the United States, there isn't a "crash section" in it, particularly on the Hiawatha Line, which a fatality and numerous crashes have also occurred. I looked at the following list and even though they have had crashes, they don't seem to have a list:

So, I believe this section should be simply be removed from the article, Perhaps a more proper and well sourced, "Incident" section would have some merit. --Hourick (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree,WP:NOTNEWS. I would add a sentence that mentions the difficult adjustment to the rail line (with sources pointing to a few accidents/events). Postoak (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the article is that this is notable precisely because none of those other light rail articles have anywhere near the crash rate, which is a continuing point of criticism for the METROTRail. And while WP:NOTNEWS would suggest the removal of individual incidents, the notability of the issue, and the fact that it's achieved several derogatory nicknames is hardly just a passing fancy.--Louiedog (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, the LA metro lines have had numerous crashes. I know for a fact there were fatalities on the Hiawatha line and that isn't mentioned, nor are the problems that initially plagued the signal lights when it started up. Post oak is right, WP:NOTNEWS applies.--Hourick (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the list of crashes, rename the section to "controversies" or something similar and keep only the referenced items that have reliable sources. Actually, I've never heard of any of the the derogatory nicknames in the article. The names (as well as much of the controversies) appear to come from a single soapbox article from a critic back in 2004 or from events related to issues after the rail line was opened. I question this [6] as a reputable source, appears to be run by this guy [7]. The entire section is not neutral and I will tag it. Postoak (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Blogs weren't meant to be used as a reference, unless they referred TO a reference? Either way, well done on the section, I'd be content with that, but I'm still apprehensive on the titles.
Please revise the section headers as you wish. Maybe "criticisms" ? Thanks, Postoak (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Buy American" section

[edit]

This seems like it might have been settled with little far reaching impact. If no one objects, I will blank it out after a month or so and simply merge it to the rest of the section. --Hourick (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and shall remove the section if no one objects, either. Oliver kanjo (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the "Buy America" issue has not been resolved. I am simply copying and pasting from the history of changes that have occurred to this page, and then wording it to reflect what is currently going on. Oliver kanjo (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like the section is starting to get a bit out of control as far as the length goes, and some of the statements is almost WP:NPOV. Perhaps a bit of trimming? While quite a bit of is referenced, not all of it is needed. --Hourick (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Out Box

[edit]

I'd like to put in a request for someone who knows how to edit the box labeled "Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas". Because of the discovery of information that has changed the lines, is there a way to get the box to reflect these changes (i.e. instead of "North/Blue Line", show that it is now the "North/Red Line Extension", etc.)? Likewise, is there a way to edit the headers of the articles to reflect these changes? Oliver kanjo (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Line article names.

[edit]

While I believe the names should be renamed, I am not sure that not referring them only to the section of town is appropriate or consistent with other articles such as, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Los Angeles County Metro Rail, and Pittsburgh Light Rail. But as it has been demonstrated so far, they can't seem to settle on a color scheme yet, so I recommend that we change the names back and rename them when the lines are completed. --Hourick (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked through the METRO Solutions website and as far as the North Line, East End Line, and Southeast Line are concerned, METRO is using the colors from Go METRORail as an official update for the lines. At the very least I would like to suggest that they reflect this. Oliver kanjo (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Realignment

[edit]

Anyone is free to move the pictures back to their original spot, but I wanted to give a heads up that I was shifting the two photos of the actual cars to the "Rolling Stock" section so that I could better place the maps (both the current map and the downtown map that I found) under the "Future Expansion" section. This way, it doesn't look as clunky down toward the bottom. Oliver kanjo (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

[edit]

I was going to move the information in the "History" section into the "Controversy" section until I noticed that the information had been duplicated. If no one is opposed to it, I'd like to remove the "History" section altogether since the only information it contains is both listed and under the proper section. Oliver kanjo (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a "merge" of the information. While I'm not fond of the controversy section myself, it WILL be part of the history of what trials this system has gone through to be constructed. Metro ran a series on the community channel (ch14) about the history of metro, but I was never able to find an online equivalent online. It's good to have a fresh pair of eyes on the metro articles. --Hourick (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the page, here's what I would merge:
1) First sentence, second paragraph of the lead would move to "History"; sentence regarding operations moved to end 1st paragraph
2) Move current controversies (excluding "Accidents") under "Controversies" section to History; insert current controversy regarding cost and efficiency (it's amazing how many of those types of articles I find while trying to find any current news).
3) Add a general note under "History" regarding the accidents to point out that they have been a part of this line's history, but leave the specifics under the section designed to report them.
Oliver kanjo (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that seems good. The controversies are basically history for the most part and have little relevance other to what metro has gone through. Mentioning of the accidents could me shrunk to a sentence or two. Even the most serious ones didn't include any major policy changes that I'm aware of, so that can be a brief mention as well, if not deleted altogether.--Hourick (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question while I make the changes to the page: I found an article online that tells about how The Woodlands is paying Houston to fund projects in exchange for them not being annexed. I checked the main "Houston, Texas" page and saw nothing that even mentioned the annexed towns. Would I put that under the "Controversy" section here as it does involve METRORail and the Museum District (amongst other things) and the comments left on the article appear to be severely opposed to this? Oliver kanjo (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does The Woodlands (a master-planned community in Houston's ETJ) involve METRORail and the Museum District? I understand that The Woodlands is contributing money to the city of Houston to fund projects per the agreement, but it has nothing to do with The Woodlands being directly involved in the Museum District or METRORail. Also, what "annexed towns" are you referring to in your post above? —RJN (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only good information I have is that I know Humble was annexed. I am willing to give that I grew up with bad information because I also remember talk from people I met that also included Katy, Kingwood, and I believe Pasadena as annexed towns, but please correct me if I'm wrong there. One of the projects funded is directly involved with changing sidewalks and improving stations in the Museum District, thus making METRORail more accessible; this is just one of many payments in return for The Woodlands to avoid annexation, and the general feeling (at least from the comments left on the article) consider it extortion. Here is the link to the article that I came across (http://www.ultimatewoodlands.com/2010/07/woodlands-funds-houston-projects) so that way we can get on the same page and figure this out. Oliver kanjo (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is confusing: The opening of METRORail on January 1, 2004, came 64 years after the previous streetcar system was shut down, which left Houston as the largest city in the United States without a rail system since 1990 when the Blue Line opened in Los Angeles. Does this mean that Houston 1) became the largest city without rail in 1940, or 2) acquired this dubious honor in 1990? Casey (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An ambitious rail system was proposed in 1973 as part of the "Transit Action Program for the City of Houston". This report is stored in the Houston Metropolitan Research Center archives. You can see a map of the 1973 proposed rail system here.Craigboy (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Oberg Houston and Dallas

[edit]

I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utah cars in Texas

[edit]

Putting this as a reminder for a ref before it disappears so I can add when I have time: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7445303.html

if anyone else wants a crack at it, by all means go for it. Wish they specified what model and style of cars they are. --Hourick (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:METRO Light Rail3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:METRO Light Rail3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

[edit]

I wanted to get feedback as to whether a list of all (or most of) the derogatory local nicknames for this system is necessary. It does not appear to be encyclopedic to include them because they are local nicknames given exclusively by certain detractors - they are not notable enough and not NPOV. As Loodog pointed out, there is more than one source for them. However, most of the sources are from small, local detractors or from news outlets (New York Times) reporting upon the crash controversy (rather than reporting upon the nicknames). It's the crash controversy that the newsarticles are concerned with. In other words, the newsreports establish the significance of the crash controversy, not the nicknames.

Also, I am not certain that listing every or most nicknames is necessary (in any location in the article). Even if these names are to be included, a brief mention that they exist (with references) should suffice.

Nicknames are included in very few wikiarticles. For example, the wikipages for George W. Bush and Richard Nixon have no mention of "Dubya" and "Tricky Dick", and the Bill Clinton only has a brief mention of "Slick Willie". The New York City page has only the briefest mention of "Big Apple" (it's merely listed in the table with the map, flag, and seal - there is no mention in the text at all). These nicknames are more widespread, better documented, and significant than any nickname for METRORail. Yet, they merit only the briefest of mentions - if any at all. It appears that nicknames in general are of marginal or no importance in an encyclopedia. I doubt that such an emphasis on listing every nickname for METRORail is encyclopedic or necessary.

Please provide feedback upon this. Thank you very much. Good day. 72.80.199.190 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to include all of them on the basis that they're all notable nicknames I've seen when I read pieces critical of the system. Additionally, simply saying that the crash situation is known enough that detractors have nicknames feels like an empty and understated statement. A critic could make a derogatory nickname for anything (s)he doesn't like, regardless of whether there's any merit to the name. If that nickname's content refers to some aspect of reality, the name actually becomes a statement. I.e. the existence of the nicknames doesn't really show anything, what those nicknames are does. On the other hand, I see your concern to not overweight the paragraph toward the nicknames, that having a long list just draws out attention in a way that's probably disproportionate with how much it deserves.
The comparison to other articles is both inapplicable (because every article is unique and has its own notable aspects) and not true. Every major city lists notable nicknames in the infoboxes (e.g. San Francisco lists The City by the Bay, Fog City, Frisco, The City that Knows How, Baghdad by the Bay, The Paris of the West) because they're notable. If you want a precedent for a derogatory nickname, look no further than the John Hancock Tower, which was derided as the "Plywood Palace", "Plywood Ranch", and "the world's tallest plywood building", all of which referred to the embarrassing design flaw that caused the building's windows to fall out, resulting in temporary cardboard replacement. The nicknames were the popular catch phrase for a notable design flaw, and, as such, needed to be mentioned in the article as a notable aspect.--Louiedog (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, and as a Houstonian, I've never heard of the light rail being referred to by these names. I'm not contesting the content, especially when references are provided, however the use of the names doesn't seem to be very widespread except by these few critics. Just my take, thanks. Postoak (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looks like the "disaster" nickname has been around :) [8], [9], [10] Postoak (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the key phrase is "they're all notable nicknames I've seen when I read pieces critical of the system." If they're just nicknames from the system's detractors, they're hardly neutral, and listing them in this article seems like it's just translating the bias into Wikipedia. Saying something like "the system has been given nicknames such as 'Wham Bam Train' in light of the frequent car/train crashes" seems reasonable to me, but saying substituting a lengthy list for the one is overkill. C628 (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In light of concerns that a list could place undue weight, a single nickname should be sufficient. As for the argument that including a term used by a biased source makes this article itself biased, I disagree. We are already including a great deal of actual content from putatively biased sources. To put some of those criticisms in their better known and succinct sound bite form I think does nothing to bias the article anymore, especially given that we're attributing the bias of statements.--Louiedog (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Station

[edit]

Apparently, METRO is holding a competition for the design of a new station on Main between Capital and Rusk. [11], there is a mention of it on the official blog [12]. I wish I had more time to include it in the main article, but I just saw this in passing.

Additionally, at what point are we going to have a separate article simply for the line itself?--Hourick (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/houston-metrorail/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No map?

[edit]

A map is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.88.234 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green and Purple need to be added

[edit]

The Green and Purple lines need to be added into the article now. They're open now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.209.161.190 (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until Saturday, when they officially open. Conifer (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're open now. I just rode on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.209.161.190 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have the purple and green lines been added but the Green line was extended by two stations on January 16th 2017. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/TXMETRO/bulletins/17f37d7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikePH1 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on METRORail. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on METRORail. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on METRORail. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lprez (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lprez (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:METRORail&oldid=1209023651"