Talk:Bi-County Transitway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is maintained by WikiProject Washington Metro. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Washington Metro, which is an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the Washington Metro system, and other transit in the Washington DC area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  |
Many thanks to Skabat169 for his assistance with my large-scale edit of this article. --Thisisbossi 04:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that the "Purple Line" is now officially named the "Bi-County Transitway" (BCT). This is because the rail will not be Metro rail, but rather light rail. The name was changed in an attempt to prevent misunderstandings from people whom may be expecting Metro rail. It's my opinion that a BCT page should be created as the main page, then have Purple Line redirect to it. --Thisisbossi 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
As I have not seen any arguments against the above transfer, I am currently transferring this article to Bi-County Transitway and will reiterate my reasoning on the Talk page for the Washington Metro WikiProject. If you disagree with this move, please post there. --Thisisbossi 02:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Reverted back so we can do a proper page move
I've reverted the redirect to Bi-County Transitway for now, since the end effect was a page move. Cut-and-paste moves aren't good because they don't preserve the page history. A proper page move should be done to change the title to Bi-County Transitway. I'm going to list this page on Wikipedia:Requested moves so that we can get this done. For now, let's edit Purple Line (Washington Metro) like it was Bi-County Transitway, and the move will be done by an administrator when it gets done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Shall do. I was actually editing the BCT page in the interim between starting it and you switching back. I will modify Purple Line with the changes; but note that my changes effectively create a whole new article. --Thisisbossi 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- As part of the GNU Free Documentation License, we still have to preserve the edit history, thus the need to properly do the page move. But thank you for re-making your other contributions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That's fine. I wasn't aware that there was a formal admin process apart from those really iffy issues of, say, "Masons" or "Freemasons". Didn't even occur to me that the Edit history would be lost via my method... thanks for catching that! --Thisisbossi 04:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, if we'd just done the page move directly in the first place, we'd need no admin intervention. We'd just move it using the "move" tab. However, since the destination page already exists, an admin needs to remove it to clear the way for the proper move to be made. Not to worry, though - it's an easy fix. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] O'Malley
Removed "Promoters of the Bi-County Transitway are now pinning their hopes on the gubernatorial candidacy of Martin O'Malley." Sounds like partisan campaigning to me personally, but I am open to discussion and opinions for re-insertion. Skabat169 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Informally
I changed "informally" back to "incorrectly" since the project is no longer called "The Purple Line." It once was, but is no more. Yes, informally is technically correct, but incorrectly better suits the situation. Sorry if I'm nit-picking. Skabat169 12:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed Edits
I removed the recent edits by 208.58.196.174. The first statement read "In 2006, a popular position taken by politicians is to support a covered purple line. Folks like Ike Leggett, Chris Van Hollen and Mayor Martin O'Malley are trying to get by with this assertion." I am not aware of any recent attempts to cover the entire length of the BCT nor a portion such as the former Purple Line alignment. The most recent that I am aware was several years ago. If you can provide a reference, I'd be fine with working this back into the article.
The other statement read "However, it is commonly known, that a vote to bury the Purple line is a vote to bury the Purple line. As the election of 2006 approaches, this issue remains "up in the air."" This consists of awkward wording, akin to saying that it is commonly known that an apple is an apple. Perhaps you meant to phrase this in another manner? If so, please feel free to add it back in and provide any relevant sources/references.
--Thisisbossi 04:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- The changes look good. nadav 05:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
