Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Include commuter rail and local bus services? 2 RTU 3 Alternate infobox design 3.1 Parking information 4 Logo 5 Station to station nave boxes 6 Newcomers 7 Shaw-Howard U 8 Routes 9 Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 10 Purple Line 11 Expanding Project Scope 12 Template:WMATA map infobox 13 New articles 14 Main Washington Metro article becoming too long 15 New footers 16 New footers nominated for deletion 17 Proposed changes to {{TrainsWikiProject}} for subprojects 18 Discussion: "Wikipedia is not a timetable" 19 Project directory 20 Corridor Cities Transitway

[edit] Include commuter rail and local bus services?

One thing I'm on the fence about is whether or not to include commuter rail services like VRE and MARC, and local bus services like CUE, Fairfax Connector, Ride-On, etc. under this Wikiproject. I think it would certainly benefit the articles, but I wonder about whether this will make the scope of our project too large or not. Thoughts? Schuminweb 22:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Buses should be include but not train stations. Also inlude Metro Buses. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should do the VRE and MARC, briefly at least, but what do you mean about the bus systems? We could mention what systems they are, and their general areas, but I don't know what else you could do. I mean, it'd be silly to list every Metro bus line and where they go. Then again, if people want to spend the time to write an article on their line (32B, 17Y, whatever) I don't see why not. After all, that's the idea of Wikipedia, right.Awiseman 23:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct about listing every Metrobus line and where they go. That would be (A) too much trouble and (B) not the point of Wikipedia. I meant whether or not we should take the articles for the various bus services that I mentioned above under the wings of the Wikiproject - whether that would make the project too wide in its scope. SchuminWeb • Talk 05:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a page for every bus line, but there should at least be a Metrobus page. It's currently a disambig. with a redirect to WMATA. -- D.M. ^(talk) 02:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should include the [Metro Bus (Washington, D.C.)] page in the project, and expand on it. Why is it not listed as a stub right now? - StoopidEmu 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RTU

Hi Ben--

I've seen your website before and seen you pop up in the Metro chats before; you do great work. The project is a great idea.

I am wondering about RTUs. A typical reader will wonder what on earth they are. There is a Wikipedia article about RTUs generally, but not specifically on Metro. I've got a description of what an RTU is here. I don't mind if this is copied to Wikipedia. However, some might argue that the info is much too specific and esoteric for an encyclopedia, which of course begs the question of whether Wikipedia should include any information at all about RTUs. (Where I stand on this, I do not know.)

Actually, on second thought, some information on RTUs would be good. Maybe a paragraph or two in the main Metro article would be good, if it isn't there already. (Links from the template would be essential too.) Massysett 19:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea of doing a paragraph or two about RTU's in the main Washington Metro article. That will justify having the information on the infobox (which I admit seems kind of random at this point), and would also give us a chance to introduce the different routes that Metro has. I'm sure few know, for instance, that the Blue Line starts on the J Route to King Street, then travels the C Route to Metro Center, the D Route to just east of Stadium-Armory, and then the G Route to Largo. I'll dig up the info that I have and write something up to include.

Also, it's not entirely predictable, either. New York Avenue, for instance, which the untrained observer would think would be B04, is actually B97 due to being an in-fill station. B04 is Rhode Island Avenue-Brentwood. Schuminweb 23:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems like it's getting too technical, is this what the article is going to be about? I would say a large majority of people don't know or care about what route number something is or whatever there is. Awiseman 01:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

We're definitely not trying to make the article into a technical manual, and trying to stay whole-picture. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate infobox design

I'm trying out an alternate version of the infobox at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (Washington Metro) which attempts to reconcile with a number of comments about the infobox as originally designed.

The new design does away with the map links, removes the old next/previous box in favor of links in the infobox (to consolidate all that kind of information into one box), and moves the picture into the infobox. I moved the picture into the box in order to allow more room for the text, as well as make room for other photos in the future.

I also wonder if we should make a template similar to Template:TTCstations on the Toronto subway articles. I think it would be helpful, but I'm worried it might be too much.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe some color but that would be problematic with a station on more than one line. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why any major changes should be made at all, if anything it should be a short infobox with a station picture, and a maybe map to define the general location, with information on opening, station id address. I created a perfectly functional station to station template that has been in use for several months already, i see no reason to eliminate it, it it's based off a London Underground model. As for the TTC box, i would rate it a no, it's overkill, adds nothing of value, and is useless to readers that have no idea of what the structure is of the system is. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll give you that - the TTC box is a little overkill upon second thought. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried the "papayawhip" color in the infobox and also some striping, and it looked kind of funny. Still, there ought to be a way to get some colors in there, as I think some color to indicate the line is a good idea, even if it's just like a little "splat" or something. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

MWAHAHA ive got it.

{{User:Jobe6/sandbox |
name = Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport |
picture = National Airport Station.jpg |
color line = [[Blue Line (Washington Metro)|Blue Line]] <br> [[Yellow Line (Washington Metro)|Yellow Line]] |
transfers = None |
platform = Two center platforms |
RTU = C10 |
Preceding = [[Braddock Road (Washington Metro)|Braddock Road]] |
Next = [[Crystal City (Washington Metro)|Crystal City]] |
Opened = [[July 1]], [[1977]] |
}}

makes this

Washington Metro station Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
Image:National airport.jpg
Line	Blue Line Yellow Line
Transfers	None
Platform style	Two center platforms
RTU number	C10
Preceding station	Braddock Road
Next station	Crystal City
Opened	July 1, 1977

To me this seems much easier to edit than the what it was before. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 21:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well i see no improvments have been. Once again i state my objections to next/previous station information being in the infoboxes. All i can see is that it will lead to confusing when dealing with multiple lines, and it will have poor formatting. And as stated before i created a perfectly functional nave box system for the metro which was on all pages that works and is based on a proven system. But since the idea is to intergrate the inmovmation into a poorly desinged infobox, then i am going to start the process of deleting the coding and removing the box from all related metro pages. --Boothy443 | comhrá 23:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad of an infobox, and is based on the one used on New York City subway stations. Example on Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station). We've tried to make a good infobox while trying to keep it functional and within a decent size. If the next/preceding station is the sore point, let's play with it! SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

NYC subway box is another example of a poorly desingned box. I have created a proposal which works far bettern, imo, then anything i have seen so far. Also i think it would be a bad idea to put the mapping links in the infobox, it only adds uneed bulk, if they is any map related things put into the box it sould be a map images, the map likns should be in the external links. So see more examples of my proposal see my sandbox. --Boothy443 | comhrá 20:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Washington Metro station Pentagon City
Opened	{{{opened}}}
Platform style	Side platforms
RTU number	C08
Next station Metro Lines Next station Crystal City Blue Pentagon Yellow

That is a nice design. In the example shown here, it is beautiful appearance-wise and still contains what we're looking for. My only issue is that its beauty is lost when the station names aren't the same or very similar in length. Then the box becomes lopsided and looks clumsy. It also makes the width of the infobox inconsistent. Let me see if I can figure out a way to "lock" the widths of that on here so that the lopsidedness and inconsistency won't happen (I have far fewer issues with things varying in size vertically). SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Beauticious, Boothy, nice design, except for the problem that schumin stated. Otherwise it looks pretty good to me. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 22:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Check it now, i made some changes, --Boothy443 | comhrá 22:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 22:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Let's implement this on an actual station page and see how she looks... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Installed it on the Pentagon City article. It looks really sharp! SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it does look pretty good, i still loking to mkae some minor tweaks to it, i want to try to get the center coloum to stay the same size though i dont think it will work. Is this what we are planning on going with, if so i am going to move it off my userspace into the template space, and make the need changes in the other templates involved. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. I think it looks great. Anyone else? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks terrific! The only change that I'd try (if I knew how) is to close the Line boxes with colored bars across the top and bottom of each. It would consume a little more space but might look a little better. Anyone up for that? AnonUser 01:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that would make it look a bit too bulky. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The new infoox is live and ready for use. I placed it at Template:WMATA infobox to leave the current Template:WMATA open for future use. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parking information

How about parking information as part of the infobox? Sites like this have the number of spaces in the lots at various stations, which would be good info to include. --dinomite 16:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on WP:BOLD, I've gone ahead and added an optional "parking" parameter to Template:WMATA infobox. It uses qif to only show the parking info if the parameter is included from the station page. --StuffOfInterest 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea! The number of spaces at each station is readily available on WMATA's site, and so that would be a useful thing to have, plus easy to implement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One problem, what counts as a space? For West Falls Church there are lot spaces, short term meter spaces, and long term meter spaces. Do we lump them all together, break them out, or just show lot spaces? --StuffOfInterest 19:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

When I think of parking, I think of regular lot spaces - the ones that you have to use your SmarTrip to get out of. I presume that's what other people would think of, so we might as well go with that. Also, I moved the word "spaces" into the actual data field rather than in the title, so that we can also add "Not available" to stations where there is no Metro-operated parking. I think it also reads better that way, and keeps the text balanced (as in side-to-side). SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea but i am a bit lear on how it will work and the source that we are going to get the information from. I think we are going to use a number we ought to use the number that metro provides, which can be found on their website, for each station, example. Also is how we list it, metro classisifies parking into three sections, All day spaces (Fares collected upon exit, 9 a.m. to Metrorail system closing), Short-term metered spaces (self explanatory), and Additional spaces and costs (spaces not controled by metro or metro spaces run under a different pricing structure then the other two parking classifications). --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I cannot find a logo, can anyone? Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Might want to try this [1]. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Station to station nave boxes

I was thinking of changing the station to station nav box from the current Preceding / Following format to one that just says Next station on both sides, something similar to 15th Street (SEPTA station), but i don't want to add the To section, as the text size will be prohibitive. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newcomers

How can someone new get involved with this project? Phil Kirlin 02:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's a start right there - bringing it up. There's always something that one can bring to these things. I'd say just jump on in and be bold, as they say. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shaw-Howard U

This station is actually called Shaw-Howard U, not Shaw-Howard Univ as it is titled in the article (see WMATA's page). I don't know enough Wiki stuff to fix it, can someone? Awiseman 21:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The latest version of the map does show "Shaw-Howard U". However, station signage on street pylons, wall signs, and platform pylons shows "Shaw-Howard Univ", and earlier versions of the map also showed it as such. I'm personally inclined to let it stand as is at this point, unless the station signage changes (for instance, if the newer-style signage like at Archives and Gallery Place is adopted at Shaw and the new signage reflects this change). So that's my take on it. Anyone else? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense, though I think they don't change the signs unless they really have to - I've seen signs that still don't have Penn Quarter on the Archives-Navy Memorial-Penn Quarter station and such. The signs also say Gallaudet U and U of Md instead of Univ, which the Wikipedia articles have right. Awiseman 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, even the newest maps say Shaw-Howard Univ on them. Weird! Awiseman 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Routes

• A (Rockville Route) Metro Center - Shady Grove (red)
• B (Glenmont Route) Metro Center - Glenmont (red)
• C (Huntington Route) Metro Center - Huntington (blue/orange-blue-blue/yellow-yellow)
• D (New Carrollton Route) Metro Center - New Carrollton (blue/orange-orange)
• E (Branch Avenue Route) Gallery Place - Branch Avenue (green/yellow-green)
• F (Greenbelt Route) Gallery Place - Greenbelt (green/yellow-green)
• G (Addison Road Route) D junction - Largo Town Center (blue)
• J (Franconia-Springfield Route) C junction - Franconia-Springfield (blue)
• K (Vienna Route) C junction - Vienna (orange)
• L (? Route - Charles R. Fenwick Bridge) F junction - C junction (yellow)

Any idea what H and I were to be? Dulles and Columbia Pike branches? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best way to refer to the L Route is as the bridge route, since its main feature is the bridge over the Potomac River. As for what H and I were to be, John Cambron has a description of what those were here. Seems that Columbia Pike was J originally, and when that got cancelled, the J designation got assigned to the line to Springfield (originally H). Then I was never used. The Dulles line is to be the N Route. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah - thanks. Do you think it would make sense to have separate articles about the routes? Otherwise we have a problem with duplication - which article, Blue or Orange, talks about the details of the Rosslyn-Stadium section? Obviously, as the Red Line is separate from the others, those route sections can redirect to it. Maybe cover Greenbelt and Branch Avenue on Green, Vienna and New Carrollton on Orange, and Addison Road and Franconia-Springfield on Blue, but the Huntington Route doesn't even have a single color. We also get a problem then in that Stadium-Metro Center is covered on the Orange Line article, as is Rosslyn-Vienna, but details of Metro Center-Rosslyn would be on a different article. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think there's enough about the routes that we haven't already covered elsewhere to warrant a separate article, and particularly not individual articles for the routes. I do think that it would certainly be worthwhile to include a bit about the routes in the Washington Metro article, under either "Metrorail Network" or "Signaling and Operation". I'm leaning more towards the latter, since that would also allow us to explain the RTU's, which are listed in the station infoboxes. Right now, the RTU numbers on there are hanging unexplained.

So in a nutshell, separate articles for each route would be excessive. But that information definitely needs to be worked into the big article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purple Line

I noticed the Purple Line article is absent from this project. Any particular reason, or just an oversight? -VJ 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oversight. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:55, 17 March 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 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it seems that the article needs a big update first, as there's no listing of "Bi-County Transitway" or "BCT" in the article at all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have seen no objection, I am currently transferring the Purple Line to Bi-County Transitway. I will redirect Purple Line disambig, BCT disambig, Purple Line (Washington Metro), and shall expand upon the naming of the BCT shortly. --Thisisbossi 02:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the BCT may not belong within the Washington Metro WikiProject. While I believe through practicality it does; technically I do not think it will. WMATA, while previously involved in the Purple Line and GBLRT projects, is not directly involved with the BCT. As I understand it, MTA will be constructing, maintaining, and operating the BCT; even though it will be using WMATA stations. Thoughts? --Thisisbossi 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding Project Scope

I was thinking and pretty much the focus of the project is mainly on the Metro, but i was thinking, and i know it's kinda been discussed before, that the project scope ought to be expanded. I think we ought to pick up other transit and transportation related subjects in the DC region, such as the bus systems, in the region, ACE, DASH, DC Circulator, The Bus, Ride On; other rail systems like MARC and VRE,; even road projects and such. My concern is that the project might become stagnant over time if the scope is not expanded. I know many have other interests and issues, i myself am trying to get a project off the ground, but be nice to see some extra activity here. Thoughts? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, and we previously kinda discussed it above under "Include commuter rail and local bus services?" And we already have articles for some of these things, such as CUE and Fairfax Connector. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WMATA map infobox

A user, Rfc1394 (talk • contribs), has decided to create an alternative template to the projects {{WMATA infobox}}, with the only difference being that of the inclusion of a map option. SO far the user has only implemented this change to Morgan Boulevard article. To be honest i am less then impressed with the results. The maps, derived from TIGER, seem extremely armatureish, they are also oversized and deform the infobox, granted they are not centred but would not make much of a difference if they were centred. As for my opinion on this new infobox and option, i would go against it, and recommend that the current infobox be used instead. While i am not against the use of map source, from this experiment i would say that a static map image in the infobox is not advisable, and that instead the mapit/coordinates system of mapping be used instead. This option would give users a variety of maps to chose from and would allow users to get more functionally, i.e. directs to the station from their location, close in sites, etc, then the static map would be. For now i have not revered the article in question pending feedback from the project. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not impressed for the same reason. Makes it look sloppy, and doesn't add much. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur. --Golbez 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok well while it seems that everyone on the project that is active with the project agrees. What about the idea of adding a part for maping along the line of {{Geolinks-US-hoodscale}} into the template or page as the alternative? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. If we do this, I would think it should go at the bottom of the infobox, below the lines/connections area. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, i'll work something up and see how it put an example somewhere. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well what i have come up with is here, it's pretty basic, and to be honest i am a bit underwhelmed, but it works, i guess, needs to mine tuning for the look probley. Also is the matter of finding the cords for the stations, Google local apparently has all the stations in their system, but the trick listed here does not work as well, due to the fact that the map put a bubble in, and it won't really center on the location with the bubble, so it will be slightly off. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The way you designed it is, in fact, exactly how I anticipated it to look. So not bad. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it turned out the same way i thought it would to, but the more i look at it and the more i think about it, the less satisfied with it being in the template and instead being in the external links, as suggested below. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions regarding maps.

1. Use Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale. Put this in the External links section, as the template will provide the map links. The template also puts the coordinates in the top-right corner of the page. (a new feature for geolinks templates).
2. If you also want a map in the station articles, I suggest a diagram (and willing to make them) that shows where the station is within the line(s).

An example of how both these suggestions (particularly their placement) could be implemented: Exchange Place (PATH station). Though, the schematic diagrams used there are somewhat different than I suggest here. For Metro, I suggest the following:

When I get ambitious, there's a good possiblity that I would also make diagrams for the New York City Subway and Chicago 'L', which I've contributed to some. So, this would be an opportunity to bring some consistency in how subway station articles are done across different systems.

Let me know if you like the idea, and if so, any suggestions before making more of these. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a red line map, along with the yellow line map, for comparison:

I would recommend using these image widths on the page, proportionate to the length of the line. Doing this requires using <br clear"all"> in the code, to prevent images, tables, etc. from overlapping, and let's them wrap on to the next line.--Aude (talk | contribs) 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the metro systems on Wikipedia does something different... I forget which one off hand, but it has a template/table that impressively makes a map without any images. Aha, I found it, Boston. Example: Central (MBTA station) --Golbez 22:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I kinda of like the idea, first off i have to say that i like the maps, the look really well donr a professional looking, and would work well with the other metro maps that we have. It is a shame though that wiki does not have image mapping, as it would work great for thees diagrams. I as think it might be a better idea to keep the maping links out of the template and in the external links. My only ceoncer with the diagrams is that the seem could be a bit difficult to read in the small size, also would like to see how it would look in the articles as well. BTW Kmf164 what other graphic stuff do you do? As for the MBTA one, i never been a fan of it, and i could not see how that would easly fit into the articles as the look now. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image maps would be ideal. Maybe someday they will be supported here. As for the size, for readability we would have to opt for larger sizes than the normal thumbnails (I've upped the sizes above slightly). And with three graphics (for Gallery Pl.), we need to figure out the best placement. I prefer the horizontal orientation, than the vertical used on MBTA. Trying to do these with horizontal tables could be tricky. The auto-line wrapping with the images is helpful. What other graphics I do? Many types of maps, but more realistically whatever I have time and ambition to do. --Aude (talk | contribs) 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Humm I am kinda lookg for some one if possible to do a set of Road signs for me, i would do it but graphic packages and myself don't mix well, espically in providing refined products .

If we're going to go with a strip map designed for each individual station, I see no need to include the entire line, which would get really big. Likewise, more than one strip map would make things look cluttered. A strip map of an agreeable width (three or four stations each direction) would fit better. This could also address stations that run on multiple lines, such as Blue and Orange through downtown Washington, by running both colors along that single line. Example:

As for the four transfers where two lines cross over each other, I'd still need to do some thinking about that. Likewise, how to properly illustrate where lines diverge on said strip map would require some thought as well. Because otherwise, for a station like L'Enfant Plaza with four lines coming together, four strip maps would be overly large. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

See see your point, espically in that in the current proposed way we would have have three or for maps for some of the more complex stations in the system. I think the idae of the map image is though defentaly one for futher discussion, though i would like to move forward with the mapit/geolinks proposal, withthe links in the external links section insted of the infobox. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

Relating to a previous message about expanding the project's scope, I've added one new article, and discovered another that we'd previously missed:

• Driving Alexandrians Safely Home (DASH)
• Ride On (bus)

SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Was thinking about creating a template, when i have the chance, to link all of these articles together, i have an idea of how it going to look, anyone have an addational ideas they like to throw out? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking a simple box to go at the bottom of these articles, listing all of these different Washington-area bus systems in some sort of orderly fashion. Lemme tinker and see what I can come up with. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

N/P, was thinking along the same lines, though i was planning on adding the metro in, just the artcile not the lines, yeah give it a shot, give me one less thin gon my to do list, maybe i need a to do list, hummm. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh BTW i would stay way from adding images (logo) to it, their are useres flipping out about image usage. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Template:DC area bus and let me know what you think. I've also placed it on Metrobus (Washington, D.C.) to give an idea as to what it would look like in an article. What I basically did was borrow the format from Template:EFareCards and then fill it in with the information we wanted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Great deal. I've added it to the other bus articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to revert if you don't like it, or tweak it to your liking... I have tried separating the links in the template by jurisdiction and alphabetizing them. [2]. I also suggest renaming the Ride On (bus) to Ride On (Montgomery County) or Ride On (Montgomery County, Maryland). Is Montgomery County the only jurisdiction that uses the name for its bus system. (maybe it is?). Another reason is that with a mouseover of the template link, "Montgomery County" would appear and be a helpful tip for those unfamiliar with the various systems. Same suggestion for GEORGE. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Washington Metro article becoming too long

I've been getting the feeling for some time now that the Washington Metro article has become a bit large and unwieldy. I have no problem with what topics we're covering, but we need to start forking some of the larger sections out into their own articles. The "Signaling and operation" section seems a good candidate for forking, as does the "Metro Transit Police" section. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with both points. Maybe expansion too - there can be short blurbs, but put the full text in a new Expansion article. --Awiseman 07:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles also needs some organizing. There is a WMATA (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) article that can form a basis for organizing the rest of the Metro Articles. WMATA is a quasi-governmental agency created by the WMATA Compact. It provides a transit service known as "Metro." Metro provides two services: "Metrorail" and Metrobus" (one word) Metro also provides a contract service for the disabled known as "MetroAccess." To a lesser extent the Transit Police is also a WMATA service that directly supports the rest of the services. WMATA, Metro, Transit Police, Metrorail and Metrobus are one organization. Metro Access is paid for by Metro, but is contracted to a third party. What I am suggesting is the WMATA article be the root article with links to the subarticles and each subarticle have "also see" links. Things like the purple line could be the core of a "future plans" article.

The "Intermodal tranportation" section needs to be shortened drastically, with details put into Transportation in Washington, D.C. or whichever appropriate article (for Virginia/Maryland). --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the proposals by schuminweb. Not sure if the signaling and operation section merits a new article (but it could be shortened), but the Metro Police definitely deserves its own article, as it is quite a major controversy here in the DC area.71.252.22.17 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I created separate sub-articles (word for word) for the Signaling and Transit Police. Both sections were long, but still had room for expansion. If I have overstepped, let me know. --Brian H 16:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long the article used to be, there seem to have been some changes recently, but as of today the article length seems right in line with that for other major subway systems, it is only slightly longer than New York City Subway, the same length as Bay Area Rapid Transit, and a bit shorter than London Underground. So the relevant question is, is this a good overall length for the article? Even if it is not the best in terms of layout, I know there needs to be a compromise in terms of relevant information and length, but if we are to aim for a length for the article would this be about right, they are still sections that can be shortened, and the Accountability and controversy section could have its own article, so what are people's thoughts? --JVittes 04:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New footers

Do we really need these? these are handled by the lists of stations in each line, and by categories. (By the way, Rfc, please don't add the "Washington Metro" category to these articles; the categories they are in, like "Red Line (Washington Metro)", are already in the Washington Metro category). They seem to just crowd the article. Thoughts? --Golbez 23:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

An example of how garish this is: L'Enfant Plaza (Washington Metro). I'll remove these if there are no objections, that's just too much. --Golbez 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me. With the little nav-box in the template and the categories as presently laid out, we've got our bases covered without these new footer boxes, which, truth be told, are quite excessive, more so at stations served by more than one line, and particularly at L'Enfant Plaza, with no less than five boxes, with redundant information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New footers nominated for deletion

Those new footers that we just discussed above have been nominated under WP:TFD. They have been nominated individually (vs. as a blanket nomination that I don't know how to do), so just go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 28 to make your thoughts known. They're all listed one after the other. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes to {{TrainsWikiProject}} for subprojects

I've proposed a change to {{TrainsWikiProject}} that would incorporate links to the various subprojects of WikiProject Trains. Your input on the template talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: "Wikipedia is not a timetable"

A policy re: station and station stop articles is being proposed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and it has been suggested that it be considered here as well. Please come and comment at User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. Mangoe 20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I read through it. Why do so many people spend so much time saying what Wikipedia is not? The technology allows Wikipedia to be much more than a classic paper encyclopedia. There is no technical reason why every station can't be listed. I've used Wikipedia in the past to find the original opening dates for some of the London Underground (aka, "The Tube") stations. DC Metro is much the same way. --StuffOfInterest 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• • There seems to be a present consensus that subway stations are notable; I almost didn't even post anything here, except that it seems to me that some subway articles have a lot of information for which this medium will always be a less desirable source. The primary issue seems to be with passenger train stops, which seem to fall into a grey area between subway stations (generally notable) and bus stops (not notable). And there seem to be a lot of cases where people are constructing train lines as a series of articles, which is in my opinion a painful way to navigate. None of this was meant as a criticism of the articles in this project. Mangoe 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corridor Cities Transitway

Do you folks wish to incorporate the CCT as a part of this project, or is that pushing the "Washington DC" limits a bit too far? The article had already been categorised as Washington Metro when I came in to expand it, so I preserved that viewpoint and added the relevant tags on the Discussion page. --Thisisbossi 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)