Jump to content

Talk:Community Transit

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 13 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Buses}}, {{WikiProject United States}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleCommunity Transit 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 25, 2016Good article nomineeListed
July 12, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
August 14, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 23, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Community Transit in the Seattle area has a fleet of 45 double-decker buses (example pictured), the second-largest fleet among public transit agencies in the United States?
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

FYI I uploaded a picture to Commons of the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center, if anyone thinks we should use something like that here. ECTran71 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a "current" (2006-present) and "older" (various between 1976-2006) logos, please! Bigtop 22:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See examples at the transit web site (and possibly e-mail the owner, since the example is the current logo right now). Bigtop 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the current logo inside the new infobox and an older logo bellow the box. I'm not sure when the older logo was used exactly. The article was broken up into smaller sections to make it more organized and references were added. The vanpool fact that was put previously needs a citation to go along with it. In the infobox I left the "Operator" box empty because I was unsure what that was referencing. The infobox also seems poorly designed in the first place, so I'm not sure if it should even stay. --Jfowler27 02:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal

[edit]

Looking for?

[edit]

What exactly is wanted to expand the page? I have some ideas, but want to run it by those who are already here first:

Those are just topic ideas that could most likely be fleshed out a bit. But I'm not sure what direction those here want to take it in. The Artak 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some information on route services offered. Going to try and add some more in the future. The Artak 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter Routes

[edit]

Commuter Routes section needs to be improved. Community Transit operates its own commuter routes, funded by CT through its funding sources and fares, for Peak service to Seattle, U-District, and Microsoft (these all operate Mon-Fri only, most peak only). These routes also provide neighborhood-level service as well as park and ride lots. This is not to be confused with the services which Community Transit provides for Sound Transit. Many of these routes operate daily, while non venture into neighborhoods like CT buses do. Slyfield (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think ST Express busses and references to them can be deleted, with a statement that CT operates certain routes on behalf of Sound Transit. There is a seperate section for Sound Transit buses. CT and ST are as different as King County Metro and CT. Slyfield (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Community Transit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 02:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • I would split the sentence "The buses ran for 16 hours a day, charging a base fare of 20 cents;[22] among the most popular lines was Route R14, accounting for 21 percent of system ridership in the first three months, running from the Edmonds waterfront to Lynnwood and the Boeing Everett Factory." at the semicolon since it's quite long and deals with two different points.
    •  Done
    • "Wi-Fi" is supposed to be capitalized.
    •  Done
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Is there a way a source column can be added or sources added to the headers to the bus fleet table to verify the information?
    It will take a while to gather all of the data. Community Transit, unlike other PTBAs/transit authorities, does not include a standard bus roster in its state-required 5-year transit development plan. I've requested one several times and will likely need to use a FOIA request in order to obtain it (and even then, citing that would be a pain).
    Would it be acceptable to slim down the table a bit (leaving only an image, model/make, years, fleet numbers, fuel type and notes) to conform with the information presented in the ref? SounderBruce 19:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as all that information can be verified to references that is fine. The engine and transmission details are a little excess to the purpose of this article. Dough4872 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • In the lead you mention that Community Transit serves Snohomish County excluding Everett. Who operates the transit system in Everett? I would think this should be mentioned somewhere in the lead.
    •  Done
    • Might want to explain what a public transportation benefit area is since it's a redlink.
    • It's explained in the first sentence of the history section. Redlink will disappear once the article is up, since it's still only a draft.
    • "SCPTBA Public Transit began operating in the cities of Brier, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Marysville, Mountlake Terrace, Snohomish and Woodway on October 4", should indicate this is in 1976 since you jump around a little bit in the first paragraph.
    •  Done
    • "The buses ran for 16 hours a day, charging a base fare of 20 cents", might want to add an inflation conversion here.
    •  Done
    • I would make sure to go through the article and add inflation conversions for other historical prices.
    •  Done
    • Can a table be added for the vans in the vanpool fleet and the paratransit minibuses? You summarize the entire fleet above the table but only have the table covering the buses.
    • Again, this would be hard to obtain and verify, even moreso than buses that have regular press coverage for fleet additions (in the form of newspaper articles as well as press releases from manufacturers).
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I will place the article on hold for some fixes to be made. Dough4872 02:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the source for the table has been added, I will pass the article. Dough4872 00:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Congrats! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New source for consideration

[edit]

@SounderBruce: great piece on Seattle Transit Blog! Is this information more or less already in the article, or could we use your post as a source? Ibadibam (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibadibam: Thanks for the feedback. The information in both articles is practically identical, with some editoralizing on the blog piece. As STB is a self-published source, I try not to reference it in work on Wikipedia, unless there is absolutely nothing else that can be cited. SounderBruce 22:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Where find it is new by bus then and other retired are listed also old bus source?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 41 external links on Community Transit. 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) 04:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Community Transit. 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) 11:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Community_Transit&oldid=1206762871"