Talk:Red Line (Baltimore)

Trains 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.

Maryland: Baltimore Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Baltimore Task Force.

Cleanup tag

I added this tag because I feel it is a bit painful on the eyes at the moment. It could use some organisation and sub-sections. If I feel up to it, I may eventually do it myself; but I welcome anyone else whom would like to have at it first. --Thisisbossi 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've chopped out some material that seemed unimportant, moved things around a bit, and give the article a few more subsections. If some my chages look a little too bold, you can put some of it back. Folklore1 (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community Opposition

I removed a reference to the Canton Community Association from the "Community Opposition" section. When I used the previously attached link to visit the association's website, I did not find anything expressing an opinion on the Red Line.

If the Canton Community Association actually opposed the Red Line, please add a specific reference before mentioning the association in this article. I need more than just a link to their index page to verify. Folklore1 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland General Assembly

I was unable to find a source to verify the statement: "Secretary of Transportation Robert Flanagan had stated that he had no opposition to the original text of the bill, but the text was altered after that statement." I don't think this sentence is important to the article, so I removed it. After all, it's quite common for Senate and House bills to undergo last minute revisions. If you feel the sentence is important, please add source reference before putting it back in the article. Folklore1 (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's just one spot remaining in this section with a Citation Needed tag. I stuck it in there, because I'd like to verify the date of the co-chair appointments. However, it's such a minor point that I didn't feel the "refimprove" tag was still needed for the entire article. So I've removed the tag. If you put the tag back in, please mention specific items where you'd like to see references (or better references). Folklore1 (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section has a lot of details that do not seem important now that planning is well underway for the Red Line. Does the article really need to identify the advisory council members, co-chairs and their appointments? Folklore1 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of another editor, I've taken the bold approach: chopping the unimportant stuff and re-organizing things. I renamed this section "Citizen's Advisory Council," which is what it was really about anyway. I've also placed a few previously separate section inside it as subsections. Folklore1 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was looking over this section after seeing the (excellent) new station chart, and I'm wondering if much of it could be chopped out. It's a bit too detailed, and some of the events are now dated and relatively unimportant (such as the bits about the vetoing; Erlich is long out of office) A briefer summary may serve better. oknazevad (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parking

A table of "features" in the Fall 2009 Red Line Update states that five of the surface stations will have parking. However, a system map on the same page identifies six stations with parking areas. Folklore1 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say let's go with the six shown on the map for now; it seems the most comprehensive overview. If there's a change once the plans are more firm, we can change it later. oknazevad (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revival

How should we handle the just-announced revival of the line? There's a lot of this page that was rendered moot by the initial line's cancellation. Aresef (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]