Talk:Lynx Blue Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:LYNX Blue Line Extension)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / Streetcars / Rapid transit (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge proposal LYNX Blue Line -> LYNX Rapid Transit Services[edit]

Hi, we've had this same talk on the METRORail page, which is also a system with one completed line and many more planned. This article shouldn't be here because, as of now, there is no distinction between LYNX Rapid Transit Services and LYNX Blue Line. There's no consistent principal to differentiate them, and if someone made one, it would be tantamount to original research. When a second line has been built, we can start to make differences between the Blue Line and LYNX. Until then, this article should be removed and redirect.--Loodog (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from with this, but IMHO the Blue Line does merit a separate article independent of the larger LYNX Transit Services. I believe this is the case in the LYNX Transit Services is the division of CATS that operates the Blue Line. Additionally, the other services will include commuter rail, streetcars and BRT operated by LYNX, and each of these has a separate article already. I've stated my piece, and will be respect any consensus that is made, but do believe there is a difference between the two with each meriting their own article. Patriarca12 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the key word you used there was will. When it becomes appropriate to split the article off, we'll do it.
In terms of the difference between the infrastructure and the agency running it, no transit article bothers to split off the subagency responsible for a particular mode from the article describing that mode's infrastructure.
But, if it is your position that the present difference between the Blue Line and LYNX is that LYNX operates the Blue Line, then we need to completely redo the LYNX Rapid Transit Services article to adhere to this. Instead, that article has infrastructure history, ridership info, infrastructure artwork and all sorts of other things that art NOT describing a transit agency. Under this position, LYNX should describe only the agency while all history, ridership, rail features, and infrastructure should be in the Blue Line page. What we have now is redundant and inappropriate.--Loodog (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal[edit]

With the opening of the CityLYNX Gold Line expected next month, the Lynx Rapid Transit Services system will have 2 operational lines. Therefore, there is now a distinction between Lynx Rapid Transit Services and LYNX Blue Line, and Blue Line information should be separated into its own article. This article (LYNX Blue Line Extension) was once located at LYNX Blue Line during a previous attempt to separate the line from the system, but was reverted after the above discussion. Now that the Blue Line should have its own page, I propose that this article be moved to LYNX Blue Line and be re-expanded to include all information on the Blue Line. I think this makes the most sense, as the Blue Line Extension information is really just a part of the history/future of the Blue Line, and doesn't really need its own separate article. Better to use this established article with page history than create a brand new article at LYNX Blue Line, and eventually need to redirect this article there. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Undecided - Do we have enough information to warrant a breakout of the articles? Keep in mind we already have an article for each station separately and this appears to not been an issue when the trolly system was active in concurrent with the blue line. It isn't unusual to have more than one line mention in the main article and the map layout showing as such. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
There definitely is enough information for an article on each line. Each of the proposed lines already has its own article, except for the active line with the most information - the Blue Line. Lynx Rapid Transit Services should be about the system, while each line can have its own individual content. Lynx Rapid Transit Services may turn into more of an overview article with links to each of the lines, but most of what is there now will likely stay, with only some of the history moved to the Blue Line article. Rather than listing all of the lines in one article, each should definitely have its own article. If you think this doesn't leave enough content for Lynx Rapid Transit Services, then maybe that article should be merged with Charlotte Area Transit System (which I currently would disagree with, but just throwing it out there). I'm not sure what the relevance of the station articles is to this discussion. I have no intent to put station information in the line article. Also, I'm not sure if articles will be created for all of the Gold Line stops, but that is also irrelevant to this discussion. The trolley was not part of the LYNX system, and its history was completely separate from LYNX and the Blue Line. So that's not really a direct comparison. The Charlotte Trolley was a line and system in one - thus only needing 1 article. Originally, LYNX and the Blue Line were rather synonymous, but no longer with multiple lines. That's the differentiation. Do you have examples of other system articles containing all the information on all of its lines? I'd be interested in seeing those to potentially use as a template for this system. --Scott Alter (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I support this, because it's common to have the operator and service articles separated to prevent them from being excessively long. Conifer (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been much discussion here, I'm going to be bold and initiate this. As more information is published on the CityLYNX Gold Line, I anticipate that many sections of Lynx Rapid Transit Services will likely need to be split between CityLYNX Gold Line and LYNX Blue Line. But for now, I'll leave most information at Lynx Rapid Transit Services, and just restructure that page a bit. --Scott Alter (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you trying to delete the LYNX Blue Line? You do realize that once the LYNX Blue Line Extension is completed, it will be incorporated into the LYNX Blue Line right? I'm fine you being bold and all, but the discussion was about breaking out the lines from the main article. I have contested the deletion. I recommend leaving the Blue Line in two articles, for now, till it is completed and can be integrated into the main Blue Line article. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a technical deletion of a redirect page so that an article move can be performed. There is no article at LYNX Blue Line (nor in the history of the article). This redirect needs to be deleted so that LYNX Blue Line Extension can be moved. Prior to my edits from earlier today, there was no article for the Blue Line at all. I don't understand why you are contesting this deletion of the redirect page. No actual content is being deleted - just the redirect. --Scott Alter (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lynx Blue Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lynx Blue Line. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lynx Blue Line. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)