Talk:Evergreen Extension

Trains: Rapid transit Start‑class Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Vancouver Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.VancouverWikipedia:WikiProject VancouverTemplate:WikiProject VancouverVancouver articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

construction date

We have not told people when the line will begin construction. As I recall, the project has been delayed a year, until September 2007, because a tunnel borer will become available then, and thus save one hundred million dollars. (205.250.167.76 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Disambiguation

This needs to become a disambiguation page for Evergreen Marine's Evergreen Line of container ships, which arguably is a better-known use of the term Evergreen Line. I propose moving this article to Evergreen Line (Vancouver, BC). Is this thing working? (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended to User:Isthisthingworking, but this page should not have been moved without a proper discussion and formal move proposal. There are significantly more hits for the transit line; more to the point, there isn't even an article for the shipping line, so no disambiguation is required. A hatnote linking to Evergreen Marine at the top of the page would be more than adequate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, didn't think this would be controversial. Evergreen Line, the fleet, has a lot more notoriety worldwide (try a web search). Also the move was proposed here for ~2 weeks without any comment. Is this thing working? (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I did search on the term "Evergreen Line", and came up with results that favoured the transit line. However, my main concern is that there doesn't appear to be any need for a disambiguation page, given that no article titled "Evergreen Line (disambiguated title)" exists to require disambiguating. A note at the top of the page would be sufficient, would prevent us having to change pages, and would keep the naming consistent with other Vancouver transit articles. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I had placed a note at the "requested move" board asking to reverse this - however, given that discussion is now under way here, it has been pulled. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that search results favor the transit line. Here are my findings. I searched for "evergreen line" in quotes (the phrase). Using Live Search (live.com) the top result is the shipping company and in the first page of results there were 5 hits for the fleet and 3 for the transit line (not counting this article and copies of it). Using Google, the top result is the shipping company and in the first page of results there were 5 hits for the fleet and 3 for the transit company. Again, I think that these are at least equal in relevance and should be treated so with the disambiguation page. Is this thing working? (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there is no article about the Evergreen Line (shipping) that is being pushed aside by the transit line. If it was a case of Evergreen Line being about the transit line, while Evergreen Line (shipping) was for the ships, I could see the need for a disambiguation page. However, given that we only have one article using a variation of that title, it is more appropriate to use a hatnote at the top of the transit article. It doesn't change anything for readers looking for the shipping line, as they would have to make one additional click in either case, and it does eliminate an unnecessary extra click for the transit article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this thing just got moved, but I'm not sure that "Evergreen Line (Vancouver)" is the best name. Sure, it's in Metro Vancouver, but it's no where near Vancouver itself. It also doesn't say what it is, unlike the shipping article. How about something like Evergreen Line (Rapid Transit)? Greg Salter (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's been a month... anyone against a move to Evergreen Line (Rapid Transit)? Greg Salter (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Evergreen Line (Rapid transit). єmarsee • Speak up! 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were some consistent Wikipedia style on this, but if you look at (for instance) Green_line#Public_transit_in_the_United_States, you'll see that generally the sort of disambiguation used does refer to either the geographic location or the transit agency for the transit line concerned. I'd suggest Evergreen Line (TransLink), except that TransLink itself needs to be disambiguated. Still, I'm hesitant to just use (Rapid Transit) in the disambig because some other agency could theoretically add an Evergreen Line to its system. --Jfruh (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current name does seem more informative to me. In an international context, the name of a city is commonly used for the entire metropolitan area (many of the best-known aspects of London lie outside the City of London), so I don't think 'Vancouver' is a problem here. Also, there isn't likely to be another Evergreen Line in Vancouver once this one is built, but someone else in the world might conceivably build a metro line by the same name. If it must be moved, I'd suggest something along the lines of (SkyTrain) for the disambiguator, rather than the jargonish 'rapid transit'. David Arthur (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it but SkyTrain is also a term that has disambiguation. I say keep it as Vancouver. This makes the most sense. Nebrot (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Evergreen Line (TransLink)

This should be moved from Evergreen Line (Vancouver) to Evergreen Line (TransLink). "(TransLink)" is the standard disambig on other articles about rapid transit in Metro Vancouver: Expo Line (TransLink), Granville Station (TransLink), Royal Oak Station (TransLink), 22nd Street Station (TransLink), Aberdeen Station (TransLink), and so on. Only U-Pass (Vancouver) and Waterfront Station (Vancouver) use "(Vancouver)" disambig, and the latter includes a fair amount of non-TransLink specific info.

I'll leave on note on the main Talk:TransLink (British Columbia) talk page. --user:Qviri 19:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links, mostly primary sources

Ouch, 7 of 21 references are dead links now. And they're mostly primary sources (i.e. TransLink), which are best avoided anyways. Anyways, tagged for now. --Ds13 (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lougheed station layout section unclear

The description of the Lougheed station layout is unclear and without citation. It's unclear because it conflates platforms and tracks. I think it means to say that the southwest track will be for Douglas bound trains, the centre track will be the termination of the Millennium line, and the northeast track will be for Clark bound trains. It is certainly incorrect to talk about the centre platform because the station will only have two. I've searched for some reference to cite for the layout of the station, but I can't find one.