Jump to content

Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

renaming to "Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion"

[edit]

I suggest that this page should be renamed "Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion" for two reasons...

  • According to WP:CAPS, article names should not be capitalized from the second word on unless part of a proper noun (name). So "Expansion Projects" should then be "expansion projects"
  • The word "expansion" alone conveys the meaning with or without "projects".

If there are no objections, I'll rename the article as suggested. Ikluft (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph formatting

[edit]

Sorry, I don't seem to understand. Why is it better to have the "San Jose extension" header six lines above where it's supposed to go? Or is this just some "HARF DARF DUN USE INNERNET EXPLODER THEN U M$ NUB DARRRR" thing? 76.234.121.124 (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about lining up things like that - it isn't worth the effort to try. The Wikipedia guideline WP:Layout#Headings_and_sections says not to use more than one blank line between sections. (That was the reason shown in the edit comment.) There's a good reason for this... Adding blank lines for formatting for your browser won't do what you want anyway on others' screens. Everything looks different on uncountable combinations of browser, monitor, OS, user settings and browser window size. There is no harm in having the images along the side not line up exactly with the text. Ikluft (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, replied to your question there, this is an issue for people on IE; funny thing though is that a lot Wikipedians are on Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, or some other browser — so the problem isn't really a concern for them. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HARF DARF DUN USE INNERNET EXPLODER THEN U M$ NUB DARRRRR 192.91.171.36 (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason why it isn't worth the effort is that this will probably keep changing at a steady pace as the Warm Springs and San Jose extensions move into their construction phases. More facts, progress, news and references will keep getting piled on. As soon as the state passes a budget, BART will probably issue the construction contract for the tunnel under Lake Elizabeth. VTA has already acquired the railroad tracks on the other side of that to get it all the way to the subway portal in San Jose. I've seen at public info meetings that VTA and Union Pacific have agreed on designs for track layouts so that parallel UP and BART tracks will maintain UP's access to their rail yard in Milpitas. Then from Montague to Berryessa, BART will replace the UP tracks. That will take a lot of construction. There will be a lot of stuff getting added here as progress slowly hits the news. Ikluft (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under construction section?

[edit]

If Oakland Airport Connector is already under construction then it seems weird to be under Proposal. Maybe add a "Under construction" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.74.81 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

too much jargon in this article, need plainer language

[edit]

This article is thorough, but it relies on jargon when plain language would be clearer. One example is use of the term conventional for the rail technology. Far better to describe the technology in simple words, providing the power source (electricity, diesel electric, overhead wires, third rail), and the nature of the right of way (exclusive, subway, elevated, in mixed traffic along existing streets). There is no table or text that I could find that indicated extent of subway versus at grade or elevated right of way. For example, the explanation of why or whether heavy rail rapid transit will extend into Livermore area is in great need of simplification for the average reader, even the transit-trained reader, to understand. So there is a jargon flag there. Especially as the San Francisco area has so many types of transit in use, it seems wise to drop the term conventional in this article, and define what it means, in simple terms, so a BART expansion can be distinguished from a Muni or cable car expansion, and for that matter, the connector to the Oakland airport, which will be part of BART, run on exclusive right of way, but will differ in key ways so that a BART train will not operate on the new exclusive right of way. Conventional is not a useful term in this article. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your argument that the term "conventional" is too vague and ambiguous to be used in this article, without a clear definition stated at the outset. Reify-tech (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Airport Connector Needs To Be Split Off

[edit]

The time is fast approaching when this section of the current article should be split off into a separate article on just the Oakland Airport Connector. The only wrinkle I can see in doing this is figuring out exactly what an article on this system should be titled – for instance, BART themselves don't seem to refer to this project as the "Oakland Airport Connector", but instead seem to call it things like the "BART-to-Oakland International Airport Project". So a good title for a separate article will need to be determined. But a separate article for this soon-to-be operational system will be needed soon... --IJBall (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample precedent for splitting off a major expansion project article once the coverage becomes substantial. What names for the project seem to be most commonly in use, and is there any "official" name? These considerations aren't definitive, but they might help in deciding a name for the article. Reify-tech (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the name - that's kind of the issue I found: in poking around BART's website, they only seemed to call it "BART-to-Oakland International Airport Project". There doesn't seem to be an "official" name for the system yet... Maybe that will come when it officially opens in the Fall?... (I personally think they should just rechristen it as "AirBART"!) In any case, I'll keep an eye on this discussion, but I'll likely plan to split off a separate article over the Summer. --IJBall (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely support splitting to a new article - there's enough information there already, feel free to split anytime. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Splitting it off is definitely still on my 'To Do' list. The problem is still what to call the new article. Right now, I think we'd be stuck with the clunky "BART-to-Oakland International Airport [project?]" as the article's title, which I'm not thrilled with. A complicating factor is that I think BART will likely rename this system once they actually open it for service. So that's part of the reason I've been holding off... But I guess this really needs to be 'split off' in the next month – so we may be stuck with starting the article under "BART-to-Oakland International Airport [project]" title, and then possibly being forced to 'move' the article soon after it's created... Anyway, if anyone has any better ideas, I'd love to hear them. TIA. --IJBall (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm thinking it's time – if there are no objections, I'm going to spinoff this content into a new article which I'll title BART to Oakland International Airport project paralleling what BART calls it (unless someone can come up with a better article title! – another possibility might be BART to Oakland International Airport automated guideway transit...) before Monday. --IJBall (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! Spun-off this content into its own separate article. I ended up going with the (still awkward) BART to Oakland International Airport Automated Guideway Transit as the article's name – I chose this name because it is the closest to what BART calls it/refers to it as. Hopefully, BART will come up with a more elegant name/branding for this system when it opens for public service – if that happens, I'll move the article to the new name at that time. But let's consider this "case closed" for now... --IJBall (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2014

[edit]
The following is a closed 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: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Bay Area Rapid Transit → Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion – This page was moved from Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion to its current title Expansion of Bay Area Rapid Transit by Epicgenius back on February 26, 2014‎ for reasons that are not clear. It seems to me that it makes more sense to go back to the previous article title, as it would then follow the article title scheme: "(System name) expansion" which seems like a better title scheme than "Expansion of (system name)" (certainly in terms of searching for relevant articles). It is unclear to me if there are any Wikipedia policies are relevant to cases such as these, but if there are I am sure another editor can point them out. Thanks in advance. IJBall (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With inline links, it is grammatically correct at this title. For example, let's say we have a sentence that says "The expansion of Bay Area Rapid Transit includes several projects, such as the Silicon Valley BART extension" (made-up). It is better than "The Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion..." – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But is this Wikipedia policy? Or editor preference? It seems like your concern about the phrasing in article text can easily be dealt with with 'piping'. --IJBall (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I can also ask if is it necessary to move it back, either? Epicgenius (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting up the requested move because I am interested what other editors think on this issue, and because I'm trying to determine if there is any relevant policy here. And also because, as I said in the "reason" section, I think the earlier title is a more logical title for a topic like this – IOW, I personally think the earlier title is preferable. But if the consensus is that your way is better, I'm OK with that too. I just want a wider range of opinions and responses on this... --IJBall (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_expansion&oldid=1205084319"