Talk:Northgate Link tunnel

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Trains: Streetcars Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Tunneling Achievement Award and interview (2018)

North Link vs University Link

For consistency I'm marking termini per the Sound Transit route map and have accordingly removed the University Link Cap Hill station from the list in this article. -- Brianhe (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Link vs North Corridor extension

The article as currently written introduces confusion about North Link. Technically speaking, North Link is only the first three stations in this article. The additional stations are part of the North Corridor HCT Project, approved via ST2. Though it's almost certain to be a Link extension, it's not labeled as such in Sound Transit documents and won't be unless and until the federal government approves light rail in the corridor.

This article should be changed to stress those differences. I might give it a try. We should also consider whether the North Corridor HCT project needs its own page at least until light rail is approved and this is incorporated as a North Link extension. The station pages for Everett and Lynnwood would also have to be revised. Llachglin (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and it looks like somebody just changed it. I added in that the Northgate-Lynnwood section is called North Corridor HCT. We should probably give North Corridor HCT its own page, although many details of the project are still uncertain. 71.113.38.220 (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Segment Name Change

Sound Transit has changed the name of this segment from "North Link" to "Northgate Link Extension Project" I've changed the name of this page, and within the content (with a reference to the former name). This name change will need to be updated in the other Link pages and templates Peel (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2016

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: Each argument in support had reasonable replies. Rough consensus to keep the titles (against the caps) was emerging (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Undoing actions by Dicklyon that were done without consensus. Official and unofficial local sources (including news media) prefer the use of capitalization to refer to these projects: The Seattle Times (though in years past they varied); the Seattle Post-Intelligencer; KIRO-TV; KOMO-TV (Lynnwood example); KING-TV (Lynnwood again); and KCPQ-TV (University example); Sound Transit, obviously; Seattle Dept. of Transportation; Seattle City Light; and King County Metro. There is plenty of use of both forms, but the capitalized one is preferred by the government agency charged with the project and used in printed materials and legally binding documents. Sounder Bruce 01:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – lawyers' style in "legally binding documents"? That's the last place I'd seek out stylistic authority. Our rules are simple: if there's varied usage, we default to our house style, which is to minimise capping (just as other major style guides do). Tony (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – nom's observation that "There is plenty of use of both forms" is enough to decide, per MOS:CAPS, that we should default to lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that calling this "Northgate Link extension" makes no sense, given that this isn't an extension of "Northgate Link" as the lack of capitalization suggests...with "Northgate Link Extension", it's clear that the entire title refers to a project by that names that is an extension of something, but not Northgate Link specifically. Sounder Bruce 05:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That presupposes there is only one possible interpretation of such a string and that capitalization has a fixed, programmatic meaning that we parse as if we are robots reading an artificial language. None of that is true. PS: Your argument actually provides as much evidence in favor of downcasing further, to "Northgate link extension" (which I would support), as for upcasing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further downcasing would be even more incorrect, as people agree that "Link" is a proper noun. Sounder Bruce 00:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right; it's the Northgate extension of the Link system; that's two proper names and a generic. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:CAPS. The RS are inconsistent in capitalizing this stuff (or how to do so – "Northgate link extension", "Northgate Link extension", "Northgate Link Extension"), so we should avoid the overcapitalization. Concur with Tony1, above, that style in legal documents is worse than meaningless for this sort of thing; remember that legalese is basically the "capitalize everything in sight" club: 'The Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part (hereafter "The Parties") enter into this Binding Arbitration Agreement (hereafter "The Agreement") ...'. No thanks. Note also WP:OFFICIALNAME; WP really doesn't much care what officialese has to say, either. The "capitalize it because it's government stuff" urge is just another example of the specialized-style fallacy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a) deferring to SounderBruce's de facto expertise on all things Seattle transit b) per well established consensus standards a la Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel c) per right of the organization to name itself and its projects, analagous to the Bruce/Kaitlin Jenner debate: why not here? It's like taking the word "the" out of The Evergreen State College because it doesn't suit our style guide. Brianhe (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A) See WP:VESTED and WP:RS; individual editors are not reliable sources and do not control any content here. B) Specific tunnels (e.g. the Holland Tunnel), like specific bridges, are discrete locations that often have proper names, and when they have one it will be treated that way uniformly in sources. The sources do not treat this generalized plan to extend light rail service, involving multiple tunnels, as a proper name, with consistent capitalization. C) Jenner is a MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP matter, the concerns about which do not apply except to humans. See WP:OFFICIALNAME; we do not apply such considerations to the inanimate, which have no magical "rights" on Wikipedia (otherwise Rhode Island would be moved to The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, as one of thousands of examples). The Northgate Link extension is not an "organization", and verges on WP:CRYSTAL that we shouldn't have an article on at all. Per WP:THE, we regularly do in fact remove "The" from the beginning of almost everything but published works; the exceptions are those covered by MOS:TM: When the RS overwhelmingly prefer such a "The" style for the exact topic in question. The RS do not overwhelmingly prefer "Northgate Link Extension" stylization of this topic. QED. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SMcCandlish: I don't understand your appeal to WP:VESTED, can you clarify? - Brianhe (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP does not defer to particular editors on particular topics. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the exact same reasons I did last time. Or, as per Dicklyon, if you prefer – basically, secondary sources don't tend to capitalize. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:16, 18 August 2016 (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.

It would be more accurate to say the route goes under the University of Washington campus. Not accross it. 2600:100F:A012:1E1D:6CE6:3E29:C79C:D734 (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]