Talk:1 Line (Sound Transit)

No merge, the line is just for light rail now

I removed a sentence that incorrectly claims that there is a merge when entering the downtown tunnel. That merge was removed last March, as the very next sentence indicates. SounderBruce reverted to restore that error(It merges...). Anyone else want to take a look? —Noren (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The fork in the tunnel is still there, albeit blocked off, so it should be mentioned. It would be incorrect to remove the mention of CPS entirely. SounderBruce 03:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

changed name

recently, sound transit changed the name of central link to the red line, but wikipedia won't let me change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EviyEmoji (talk • contribs) 05:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@EviyEmoji: The article mentions that it will be rebranded to the red line in Central Link § Future plans, but that that won't happen until the blue line (east link extension) happens in 2021. --Pokechu22 (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sound Transit is phasing in the use of "Red Line", however it is not a WP:COMMONNAME (the preferred way of naming articles on Wikipedia) and not technically official until the September 23 service change. For now, I plan to add the Red Line (and other color designations) to the leads of various articles during that service change, but the redirects from Red Line (Sound Transit) are fine enough. SounderBruce 06:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's already on the way out again. I can't find "Red Line" in active use by the agency. It's just labaled "University of Washington–Seattle–SeaTac/Airport–Angle Lake" on the official map. Ibadibam (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A new name is planned to be chosen around March, so this article will have to remain with the Red Line moniker for a few more weeks. Moving it back to Central Link and then to the new name just adds a whole lot of complications, especially with the backend links. SounderBruce 20:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In 2021 it will become "Link Line 1". As it is no longer the Red Line and the next name is already chosen, why not move it there? 2601:601:9D01:8C0:0:0:0:D73A (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Although the previous comment claimed it will be named the "Link Line 1" I believe all the branding Sound Transit is rolling out will actually call it "Link 1 Line" instead. See this branding page and this brand guidelines document. I noticed that earlier this month a user tried to change the article to reflect this but that change was reverted so I thought it would be good to discuss it here. I admittedly don't have a thorough grasp on article title conventions, but it seems like it would at least make sense to reference the name Sound Transit will be displaying everywhere. Also I imagine any changes would apply to the other lines (Sounder/N Line & S/Line, Tacoma Link/T Line, East Link/2 Line) as well. VigilantPenguin (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Sound Transit calls it the “1 Line” and not “Line 1” - same with “T Line” and not “Line T”. see here where they use this terminology: https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/northgate-link-light-rail-testing-moves-final-stages 66.170.190.174 (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Curious to hear your thoughts on this Line 1 vs. 1 Line question. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We should go with Line 1 unless 1 Line wins out as the WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of the official designation. I prefer the former because it aligns with other systems, and the latter is just extremely awkward to use. SounderBruce 18:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Line 1 by itself wins out in terms of convention with other systems, but with transportation lines named with letters (which make up the majority of the current Sound Transit rail system) wouldn't the common convention be the opposite order (S Line, N Line, & T Line)? If it is decided that is not enough reason to change the page title, then we should at least mention the official lines names in the articles so they can be found when people search for the official names. VigilantPenguin (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added the official name to the leads and will try to fix the Sounder mentions. With how fickle this naming process has been, we should stay with the international order (Line 1) just in case the name changes yet again. SounderBruce 23:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: @VigilantPenguin: Despite being very unconventional, Sound Transit is explicit that "Line 1" is incorrect. From their their style guide, "The line indicator should always precede the word ‘line.’ 1 Line, not Line 1." And as VigilantPenguin said, their brand guidelines also indicate that "Line 1" is incorrect. This should be changed. ReflectivePoet (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Generally, we don't use official names if they aren't also used widely by independent sources. The official brand guidelines are not the end-all, be-all here, as other agencies (SDOT, WSDOT, CT, Metro) don't consistently use "1 Line" and non-local sources like Mass Transit Magazine just use "Line 1", which also aligns with the international naming standard for such lines. SounderBruce 05:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "1 Line" sounds odd and obviously we shouldn't necessarily use it here if people aren't saying it on the ground, but I think the burden of proof should be on the decision to not use the official name. In particular local sources, which would reflect what people who ride it say in real life, should probably be preferred over non-local sources, and if there's evidence from local media that it's genuinely called "1 Line" in Seattle, that should probably be preferred, no? I don't know how much weight to give the idea of an "international naming standard," which just strikes me as a fancy way to say "the way people usually say this sort of thing," as there's no actual international standards body that's establishing it in a definitive way. --Jfruh (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I got the chance to ride this route from Northgate last week. Signage read "1 Line" and when I boarded the train the overhead speakers on the light rail vehicle announced "This is the One Line..." Just wanted to add that if it's worth considering. VigilantPenguin (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Sound Transit pretty much never uses the name "Line 1" and always uses "1 Line" instead on announcements/signage/etc. I would weakly support a move to "1 Line" since that is consistently what Sound Transit uses. But the name Line 1 might be more common outside official material, as searching Google for "Sound Transit" "Line 1" yields more results than "Sound Transit" "1 Line". However, this might change as Sound Transit continues to push the "1 Line" name. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 06:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Continuing to keep the page name as "Line 1" seems like us, as Wikipedia editors, are editorializing. We may personally think that calling the route the "1 Line" is silly (I certainly do.), but that's what Sound Transit has decided to call it. I also think it would be a good idea to have a line or two on the page to discuss the critism that the agency has recieved for the naming convention and how it leads to strange annoucements like "this is the one line to Northgate". --RickyCourtney (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@SounderBruce I really think it's time to revisit this discussion. This weekend, I visited for the first time in several months and I felt bombarded by hearing "this is the 1 Line to Northgate" over and over.

Most of the major news outlets are now using 1 Line: Seattle Times KING, KIRO, Seattle PI, FOX13.

It seemed to me that the true "common name" is still "the light rail" but that's not a reasonable name for an article on Wikipedia. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We gave it time and there's now some consensus on using "1 Line" among media but not the public, but it's just so horribly awkward. The move would be fine, but it'll be an absolute mess to handle. I still think it'd be best to wait until Line 2 (or "the 2 Line") is closer to completion so that all of the messiness happens at once. SounderBruce 04:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Updates to "future plans" section

The "future plans" section states "During construction related to East Link in early 2020, trains within the downtown transit tunnel are planned to be limited to single-track operations and divided into two lines at Pioneer Square station." I'm not well versed on the subject, but it seems this statement might be outdated per the last paragraph of the "history" section. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 00:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Lack of turnstiles paragraph

Hi, I recently added a paragraph explaining the reasoning behind the lack of turnstiles. However, @SounderBruce reverted that, noting that it belonged on the Link light rail article instead. While I agree that it would be useful to have there, there isn't an existing section that I can put it in and I haven't done (and don't plan on doing) the research needed to make a more general section on fares for that article. Furthermore the current article already mentions the lack of turnstiles, and I think it's useful to elaborate. Also, although the statement should also apply to the Line 2 stations, I don't think it applies to Line T (since it was launched without fares). IMO the best way to handle it is to include the same/similar paragraphs in both this article and in Link light rail, and the Line 2 article once it has a fares section. Thoughts? --Pokechu22 (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Redundant content is not the way to go. Since this will apply to the majority of lines and stations going forward, it's better to cover the basic aspects of the system at Link light rail or List of Link light rail stations, with notes on the differences between Lines 1–4 and Line T (the latter of which will use the same POP concept anyway starting in 2022). It's far easier to keep up maintenance of a single section in a single article instead of the same section across four articles. As this article is a featured article, we should be aiming at something more stable. SounderBruce 07:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Won't everything in the current fares paragraph apply to Line 2-4 as well, meaning the section would need to be copied to those articles eventually? --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Page move

With the undiscussed page move, there will need to be some changes made across the system articles. Having {{rint}} display the line icon and number right next to each other is problematic, so that needs to be fixed; the definitive article needs to be added before most (but not all) mentions of "1 Line"; and there probably is some underlying template somewhere that needs to be fixed up. I'm sure Sound Transit will rename the line again by the time we can update everything. SounderBruce 21:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This page move was discussed ad nauseum (see #changed name). No matter when this change was made, there was gonna be fall out inthe form of lots of changes that need to be made. Sure, that could have been coordinated better. That said, in my opinion, the necessary changes have been made very quickly. I can work on getting that rint changed now. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait, I know what you mean now, the icon ① and the name "1 Line" are next to each other. As you said, it's "horribly awkward" -- but that's on Sound Transit -- it's not a judgement call for us to make as Wikipedia editors. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to splice some code into the module from the NYC Subway equivalent to just use the icon in the services box. Would bypass that issue for the normal lines, but figuring out a solution for the extensions is tricky. SounderBruce 21:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that there has been prior discussion, the name change happened over a year ago, and the 1 Line is the clear WP:COMMONNAME (and matches systems like the NYC Subway), I disagree that this warranted further discussion. Brooklynpedestrian (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Part of the FA criteria is stability. We don't up and change things without good reason for something that has been assessed to that standard by the community. Please consider that dozens of articles need to be updated with the new name and new links, as well as other templates. A little heads-up would've been appropriate. SounderBruce 23:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Your guidance here seems to be in conflict with WP:BOLD. Pages can be updated incrementally. Brooklynpedestrian (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If you insist on rehashing a month-old discussion, perhaps reading WP:FAOWN will help. "It is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." This includes the title of the article. SounderBruce 09:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)