This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County 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.
I think a long term goal is to make this page more caltrain-like. (similar in details and structure.) MrHudson
I am going to work on some of the page content this weekend, and move around a couple sections, too. I will put up an uncopyrighted system schematic when I have time. The Coaster page will more closely resemble the Caltrain page then. -DavDaven 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe the Reporting marks are SDNX, not SDNR, as this is not a Class I Railroad. Anyone agree? -Unregistered User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC-7)
Nope it's SDNR... NCTD who runs the COASTER also owns the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR) who purchased the tracks used by Coaster from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway in 1994. NCTD created the subsidiary San Diego Northern Railway Corporation in 1994 and dissolved it in 2002. NCTD still owns the SDNR reporting marks and uses it for its rail equipment. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC) The railroads reporting marks are in fact SDNR but all SDNR locomotives and rolling stock are marked with SDNX
Image copyright problem with File:Compass Card.jpg
The image File:Compass Card.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: pages moved. The arguments for disambiguation by type (rather than location) were stronger, and further disambiguation from the Australian DMU can be done with a hatnote. Miniapolis 21:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
– Both rail lines are operated by the same transit agency, yet their article titles are disambiguated completely differently. The disambiguated titles used to be somewhat "reversed" – as Coaster (North County Transit District) and Sprinter (San Diego County), respectively. I don't think it makes sense to use the locations or the transit agency to disambiguate the titles. Using the location doesn't make sense because there are no other rail lines with the same names (such as Metrolink (Southern California) and Metrolink (St. Louis). Using the agency doesn't make sense either because I don't think that "North County Transit District" is very recognizable for readers and it won't help them find the article they are looking for. Let's just keep it simple and disambiguate it to the type of rail lines they are. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose both the proposed disambiguations are unintuitive. For most people, these geographically limited trains aare more easily accesible through their locality names. And Oppose "Sprinter", there's also NS Sprinter Lighttrain. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
What do you suppose we move them to then? Both articles should have consistent titles, regardless. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
After much thought, I think I'll give weak support. Honestly, I don't see the need for these to be consistent with each other, because despite connecting, they are separate services, but I don't think the current disambiguators are good. Sprinter is poor, as, with a few exceptions, transit agencies are too obscure to make effective disambiguators (like the (NICTD) at South Shore Line (NICTD); it doesn't tell anything to anyone that doesn't already know what it is, and isn't needed anyway as a primary topic). Especially here, as "North County" is so vague as to do nothing to actually disambiguate. Meanwhile, "(San Diego)" would be a fine disambiguator if there were other trains named Coaster in other places, but there's not, so it is actually an over-précise disambiguator. That it is a commuter train is the first thing that sets it apart from the other entries at Coaster (disambiguation), not that it is in San Diego. So I support. oknazevad (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that's a model of EMU that happens to have that similar, but not identicle name. We don't need a disambiguation page for two items; a hatnote covers it fine. And the Sprinter in San Diego County appears to be the primary topic for the term in relation to light rail in English sources, so that article should be at Sprinter (light rail) with a hatnote pointing to NS Sprinter Lighttrain. That would accomplish that task of better disambiguators (because the current one is truly poor) while still allowing for anyone searching to get to the EMU model article to follow only one more click and not requiring an additional click for the majority of users who are looking for the service in California. oknazevad (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to point out, if we do decide to go with the locations to disambiguate, it should be noted that only two Coaster stations are located in San Diego, while none of the Sprinter stations are located in San Diego. Both lines, however, run entirely within San Diego County. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
"County" would have to be capitalized, that's basically indisputable. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Weak support per oknazevad. Use a hatnote on Sprinter to the Dutch line. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Support as proposed. In general and in this specific case, I think it is better, clearer and more helpful to disambiguate by what the thing is, rather than by where it is - or what agency it is a part of. --MelanieN (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified one external link on Coaster (commuter rail). 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.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.