Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / Rapid transit (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
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 Wikipedia. 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
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada / Alberta (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
 

Yard/garage[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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)

I think there is enough to begin articles on each one. I just started the Metro line. With a little help and everyone pitching in, we can do this well. Just don't delete facts until you can be sure that they either make a page error or are obviously wrong and check the references. I invite everyone to create the pages of Valley line, Energy line, and Festival line. I made some templates about next/previous stations on the Valley and Festival lines, missing the energy line. (Gingeroscar (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC))

Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and what Wikipedia is not. Articles aren't started on any notion of future construction. 117Avenue (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Station naming convention[edit]

DISCUSSION MOVED:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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, Wikipedia 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Gorman and Ellerslie Stations[edit]

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)

Valley Line nonsense[edit]

In light of the numerous articles, templates and route maps which have popped up over the past couple of weeks, can we all agree on some guidelines as to when a new article/template should be created?

The Valley Line is only approved, the funding is still not in place, and with an election this fall, it might not even be built. I suggest we keep everything about the Valley Line in the future expansion section of the main LRT article. When construction begins, an article for the line and individual stations can be created.

As to the route map templates, I think it should only show the current 15 stations and the 3 that are under construction. The only change I would make, would be to differentiate the route line colours. All other expansion can be shown in File:Future Edmonton LRT.png. Everything else is just overkill.

The same rule can be applied to any other future station or line. Gorman and Ellerslie were announced but never built, so they really shouldn't have had articles either. Just wait until construction begins.

Agreed? Suggestions??

Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to not be harsh to the editor in question by using terms like "nonsense" above and "rubbish" in edit summaries and instead reaching out. Newbies editing in good faith with good intentions should be encouraged rather than discouraged. No one has reached out directly regarding all the reverts, and without it, it appears edit warring has begun. Reaching out on their talk pages with explanations and guidance, and responding to their talk page inquiries will go further in retaining such newbies, but not in a terse fashion such as this. Hwy43 (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't differentiate routes in route diagrams. See Template:Railway line legend and Wikipedia:Route diagram template, red is for heavy rail, and blue is for light rail. 117Avenue (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you don't, but is becoming common practice for lines to be show in their own colours on system/network diagrams, whereas the red/blue convention remains for stand-alone diagrams. See Template:Budapest Metro route diagram and Template:Line 1 (Budapest Metro), for example. Useddenim (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I see. 117Avenue (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Then I propose this. 117Avenue (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
(Cache error at my end—was still loading the old (broken) version. Useddenim (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC))
Well, my problem with your suggestion is that it appears to show two independent adjacent lines. See commons:Talk:BSicon/Colors#Bilbao’s black+orange for other (but admittedly not universally accepted) ways of handling two lines together. Useddenim (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is getting off topic, let's move to Template talk:ETS LRT route#Metro Line routes. 117Avenue (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

6 wards will have LRT in their areas and convenient access and is half of the city. Those wards would not vote out someone who could bring the LRT to them. It is certain to a point about not if, but when in the next 8 years.

(Gingeroscar (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC))

The election? Is that what is this about? Wikipedia runs under the same rules whether there is an election going on, or not. We form a WP:Consensus in order to determine what is, and isn't included in articles. Unverifiable information is removed on the spot, and the other users here feel that it violates Wikipedia policy to include information on the future, until it becomes reality. 117Avenue (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Gingeroscar, I'm confused about your comment above as well. At face value, the comments appear to be your personal point of view (POV) and your speculation of the future. You may express your personal POV and speculate on talk pages or your own page if you would like (so long as they don't violate other Wikipedia policy), but these things are not permitted elsewhere, such as in article space or in the generation of templates based on speculation. In addition to 117Avenue's suggestions above, please review WP:NPOV and WP:SPECULATION. An understanding of these may save you from wasting effort on certain edits, etc.

Also, note that Edmonton once planned a different LRT route to Mill Woods. It was to follow the CP rail line parallel to Gateway Boulevard and then was to head due east to Mill Woods Town Centre along 28 Avenue. Ultimately, this planned alignment was abandoned. This shows exactly why a lot of your edits are premature – new templates, new articles, etc. – and why many others are reverting the edits. The three other currently planned lines may very well never be built. Please keep this in mind as you continue to contribute. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't the CP/Gateway Boulevard alignment mentioned in the article? If it made it through the planning process (even if ultimately rejected) it should cross the notable/relevant threshold. And (IMHO) any future proposal that receives serious consideration by authorities is worthy of inclusion. Useddenim (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It was seriously considered in the 1980s (apparently on the table in 1984 and then off the table in 1987) and was one of the four core alignments considered in the concept planning exercise in 2008/2009 before falling to the now approved alignment. I'm pulling Edmonton's Light Rail Transit: The First 25 Years from the library to see what can be found. Hwy43 (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed lines[edit]

What is the requirement for proposed stations to be included in the #Lines section? St. Albert wants about four stations within their limits, and there's plans for the line to go to Fort Saskatchewan, the international airport, and Leduc. 117Avenue (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

They should probably have a name and an exact location. There are plans for St. Albert, but there aren't any for the others you listed. Thankyoubaby (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Valley line[edit]

I am wondering if it would be useful to move the information regarding specific to individual lines to their relevant articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talkcontribs) 05:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Metro Line and Capital Line articles already consist of specifics on their individual lines, so I don't know what you're saying. 117Avenue (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that, based on how close the Valley Line is to being built, it has a 100% commitment for stage one, it has all the preliminary design, and it is almost getting companies to bid. I have just found out about an article about pizza farms and it seems important enough to have its own article. Gingeroscar (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 117Avenue (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Southeast LRT is 100% funding and in in procurement. I really think it is time for it's own article. Utility relocation is getting close to completion and the bidders has been submitting their request for qualifications which has closed apparently. 5 consortia have bidded. No announcements but it is in the committee meetings so there is a record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talkcontribs) 23:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your short comment is hard to read, and half of it doesn't make sense, so I am not convinced I can trust your judgement. What would be in this article, that is not already on Edmonton Light Rail Transit, warranting its separation? 117Avenue (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There is alignment, a list of stops, details like how many stops, what is proposed at each of the stations, it's history, and references would be better kept in a separate page. I also think that due to how close construction is coming to being a reality and is in fact in the pre-heavy construction phase. I.E.relocating utilities away from the track alignment, acquiring and demolishing the property needed to build the line. The city recently found five consortia (Gateway Transit Partners, Moving YEG, River City Transit, Trans Ed Partners, Valley Line Partner) for the Request for Qualifications phase. Each level of government has committed a certain amount of money to pay for the project. I can't see why it is not notable enough to earn it's own page. This is like Freetown Christiania within Copenhagen, self policing. This LRT is supposed to move about a hundred thousand (100 000) people, according to the cities concept planning booklets. Gingeroscar (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think that isn't enough for separation, most of that is already on this article. An encyclopedia isn't for reporting on what is in the news. 117Avenue (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)