Talk:Green Line Extension

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGreen Line Extension has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starGreen Line Extension is the main article in the Green Line Extension series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 26, 2022Good article nomineeListed
March 17, 2023Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 21, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Green Line Extension, which partially opens today, was first proposed a century ago?
Current status: Good article

Phase 2/2A agreement?[edit]

There are a number of people on social media that are saying that the MBTA and it's construction contractor have failed to reach agreement on the delivery of the package of work for Phase 2/2A. Unofficial sources are suggesting that the MBTA has decided to change direction with the delivery of the overall project from a single contractor to multiple Design-Bid-Build contracts. Has anyone heard anything official? Bethayres (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard anything about this, from official or unofficial sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word is that the Contractor's cost is much higher then the budget, and that the project will be re-packaged, and that the project opening date will be delayed by at least one year. Bethayres (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight in "Criticism" section[edit]

Adding material about tree removals and operating subsidies—both of which are typical for American light rail projects and infrastructure projects in general—gives them undue weight. The "Criticism" section is not for every run-of-the-mill objection that manages to get printed in a newspaper. It's for substantial criticism that is notable for this project in particular. The debate over the Route 16 terminus passes this test; the items I removed do not.

@Weststationrider: While adding sourced information is welcome, please take care not to engage in POV-pushing by exclusively adding negative content on this article and on Stephanie Pollack. Conifer (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D and E branches[edit]

The MBTA has posted a map that shows the new extensions to the D and E branches.[1] This map shows that the D branch will be extended to Union Square while the E branch will be extended to Tufts/Medford, contrary to what was stated in this article and others. I edited this article accordingly but related articles need to be edited as well. Eladts (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One map, already four months out of date (note that the B Branch stops don't match the recently announced names), really isn't enough to conclusively say. Until there's an official announcement, we should leave it as it was. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited for the current assignment of the new extensions to the existing lines is from 2011 and is no longer accessible.[2] If a map physically posted by the MBTA isn't a valid source, a dead link isn't either. Eladts (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MBTA maps showing future services are notoriously unreliable (witness the infamous 1979 commuter rail map), which makes me very hesitant to make the slew of changes (this article, the station articles, the line articles, templates, etc) based on a tweet of a map. While it's very possible that the terminals have been switched, I think it's best to take a wait-and-see approach until there's conclusive evidence one way or the other. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent official source that I found[3] states that "Decisions on which lines will continue to Lechmere and beyond have not been finalized." I could not find any source for the assignments between new branches and existing lines that are currently in this article. I think that if the new map isn't considered a valid source these assignments should be removed until there is one. Eladts (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe is now reporting the switch with confirmation from the T. I'll make the switch in the appropriate articles and templates today. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've finished the necessary updates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [[1]]
  2. ^ "MBTA Light Rail Transit System OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN" (PDF). Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. 6 January 2011. Retrieved 10 August 2015.
  3. ^ [[2]]

Article changes for Union Square Branch opening[edit]

The MBTA's first big subway opening in decades comes with lots of articles to update. Because the Union Square Branch will begin service in the afternoon, rather than the start of the service day, articles should not be updated until the afternoon. I will set the most important articles to automatically update with {{show by date}} once the opening time is announced. (I will be photographing the opening; other than a few minor mobile edits, I won't be able to make changes until the evening.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Service will begin at the start of the service day. I will have the templates update at 5am EDT, and I should be able to make relevant template changes around 8am. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that's everything done. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Core articles: I will set these up to automatically update; they shouldn't need any human edits on the day of opening.

Associated changes: I will also set these to automatically update. Some will need manual updates to {{adjacent stations}} and other templates.

Templates: These can't be automatically updated, but I'll attempt to update them beforehand (and then self-revert) so that the updated version is ready to go.

Secondary articles: There are probably other articles that will need minor updates as well.

For manual updating upon opening:

Please add disambiguation statement[edit]

I was going to follow WP:BOLD but then saw this was tagged as a "good article" so I thought I'd request the change instead. There are numerous articles on "Green Line" transit systems, including a number that are considered current extensions (i.e. Calgary's). For that reason, I'd like to request this disambiguation be added to the top: This article is about the transit line in Boston, Massachusetts. For articles on other transit lines and extensions named "Green Line," see Green Line#Transit Lines. 23skidoo (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not necessary, per WP:NAMB, which says It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous. This is about a specific project called the Green Line Extension, not an article on the Green Line. As far as I'm aware, the name "Green Line Extension" (and variants thereof) doesn't apply to other notable subjects, not even to extensions of other Green Lines around the world. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article changes for Medford Branch opening[edit]

Time for round 2 of GLX opening. I will set the most important articles to automatically update with {{show by date}} at 4:00 am local time (9:00 am UTC). Some templates etc I'll manually update the day of. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everything is either manually updated, or will auto update shortly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Core articles: I will set these up to automatically update; they shouldn't need any human edits on the day of opening.

Associated changes: I will also set these to automatically update. Some will need manual updates to {{adjacent stations}} and other templates.

Secondary articles: There are probably other articles that will need minor updates as well.

The following need manual updating upon opening:

My recent edits, including new picture[edit]

@Pi.1415926535: Let me explain my recent edits. I changed "the two branches... to "Two branches..." because thee was no previous mention of branches in the text, so a definite article was inappropriate here. Another solution would be to say GLX has two branches earlier. It's a minor matter. I also spelled out VMF in the most recent addition since it was quite a ways from when VMF was defined. I think that helps casual readers. Again its a minor matter.

The section on Economic effect has mostly projections on what the project was expected to do and needs updating now that it's here. I added the picture of a 25 story building being built adjacent to the Union Square Station as being much more representative of GLX's economic effects than picture that was there, a single house. The new picture is one of yours, by the way, a nice shot. We could use more photos as the area develops. There has also been major impact on the other side of the tracks in an East Cambridge neighborhood that used to be mostly junk yards. One yard that had been in the family for generations sold for over $200 million recently. That's impact.

We seem to have very similar interests on transportation and we should be able to work out issues like this in a friendly way. I'll try to explain my edits better in the future.--agr (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnoldReinhold: I do agree that the economic impact section will need updating. My revert for your changes was because the section is only big enough to fit a single image - the tall second image added a lot of whitespace - and because external links should not be used in article text (including captions) per WP:NOELBODY. I would be fine switching the existing image to one of USQ. It might be better to use a landscape-orientation image like File:USQ construction near Union Square station.agr.jpg or File:USQ D2.3 and Union Square station elevator construction, December 2021.JPG to avoid the vertical image being too big for the text. (You also could use the vertical image with the "upright" parameter.) Your other grammatical changes were fine and you're welcome to re-add them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the previous photo with the one of the more finished building, which better reflects current conditions. I used the "upright" tag which is designed to keep vertical images from being too big for the text and works fine here, I think. Ok for now?--agr (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Line_Extension&oldid=1207423843"