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
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.
I agree with 75.93.173.167, the connector bus section should be deleted. The bus has now stopped operating, so there is no reason to have that section there, even for historical purposes. If no one has objected in the next couple days I will delete the section.
I also agree. This should be removed from here and TIBS' article. If we/y'all think this info should remain on Wikipedia, I think it should be put into a history section of the Central Link article. YB3(t)11:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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The result of the move request was: not moved/withdrawn. Looks like there isn't a reasonable alternative, thanks all for participating. Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See WP:NC-SLASH. I thought subpages were disabled in the main article namespace, no? It is just, as that guideline says, subpages are still enabled in the talk namespace, and thus in most cases must be renamed separately. Unless there are alternative common name here, we should not rename all of these affected articles just for the sake of avoiding the slash while the current WP:NC-SLASH guideline is still in place. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as 99% of articles have talk pages it is something that inherently affects them. What I'm asking for here is if people familiar with this topic do know of an alternative common name? Obviously if all sources use "SeaTac/Airport" then we will just have to live with it despite the technical issues, but if there are other reliable sources using, say, "SeaTac–Airport" or "SeaTac Airport" then that would be better than the current title. The only reference given in the article is a deadlink and general Googling of news sources shows that most don't bother to name the station. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2015 (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.
I have closely looked at Google Maps and find that there are no bus stops at the station. There is a drive through under the station but it is used as a potential parking area and it is also blocked by orange barriers. Hypothetically, it could be a bus stop if there was foot access but it is not. The bus stops are on the street adjacent to the station. Therefore, the article should be modified to reflect that.
The reason that I am mentioning this minor proposed revision is because I already changed it but it was reverted by SounderBruce, an esteemed editor. He is not the owner of the article but his opinion carries some weight to me. In view of the odd revert, I am mentioning it here. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The bus stops on International Boulevard are pretty much in the station's shadow and are considered by Sound Transit (see here and here on pg. 14/15) and secondary sources like The Seattle Times (here) as the bus stops for this station. The article already calls out the International Boulevard bus stops as being separate from the station building (but not the complex) and does not need to be changed, lest we start adding original research. SounderBruce04:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into this matter further. I see that International District/Chinatown station actually has bus stops in the station. The SeaTac/Airport station does not. Therefore, we should not knowingly put wrong information into Wikipedia. Adjacent? Yes. Nearby? Yes. Similar bus stop name as the station? Yes. But the bus stops are not in the station.
I fear for this article because even this one simple paragraph is starting to develop controversy. The article has possibly 100 major facts which may mean 100 of these discussions or more Vanguard10 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The downtown transit tunnel is an extremely unique case, given that light rail trains and buses share the same physical platforms. At all other light rail stations, the bus stops refer to nearby stops (with standard signs and shelters) on nearby streets or within the off-street transit center; SeaTac/Airport is no exception, with the nearby street being International Boulevard. This is fairly standard in the transit industry and fairly obvious to anyone who has transferred from a train to a bus...almost no transit company will purposely dissociate the bus stop from the train station because it's in a separate but nearby facility. SounderBruce04:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into an article that you did not edit. 72nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) is one of them. There is no mention in the article that buses stop at this station. However, many buses stop adjacent to the station. All I suggest in honesty; mention that buses stop adjacent to, near, close to, or similar language as the station. No buses stop at the station Vanguard10 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article you linked is not a good article and is from the NYC Subway, which has its own set of separate standards that differ from the rest of the Trains WikiProject. Sound Transit considers the pedestrian bridge as part of the station, so if the bus stop is literally under that bridge does it not constitute part of the station? How about situations like University of Washington station (an FA), where the walk to the bus stops is far longer and the buses themselves use "UW Station" on their destination signage. Just drop the issue, it's not worth spilling this much digital ink over. SounderBruce02:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.portseattle.org/sea-tac/ground-transportation/public-transit Quote (bold added): The most convenient route to the stops is to take the walkway through the north end of the fourth floor of the Airport Parking Garage to the Sound Transit Link Light Rail Station and exit to International Boulevard. The following King County Metro routes pickup adjacent to the light rail station on International Boulevard: Vanguard10 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ERROR: It seems that there are not 5 bus routes to the station. Two of them mentioned are Sound Transit bus routes that stop at the south end of the lower drive by the airport terminal. According to Google Maps, that is almost a 1 km walk. The citation in the above paragraph also mentions the location of those 2 bus routes being by the airport terminal. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those two routes stop at the terminal AND the International Boulevard stop (as seen here and here), so please double check before making such claims. The Port of Seattle does not have any role in transit beyond providing the walkway through the parking garage, so their intern-written website (which forgets to capitalize "Federal Way", among other errors) is not a good source of information. It's absurd to say that buses that stop under the overpass on International Boulevard, full of passengers with the intent of boarding light rail trains, cannot be described as serving the station. SounderBruce05:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have much doubt that there is much traffic between Angle Lake and Bellevue. I have much doubt that there is much traffic from downtown Seattle south to the airport station then transferring to a Sound Transit bus to Bellevue because that would be a very circuitous route. So I have doubt that "buses that stop under the overpass on International Boulevard, full of passengers with the intent of boarding light rail trains..." is true. Do you have data to show that people are taking these circuitous route transfers?
I've also looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidRide_A_Line. I doubt there are buses on this line "full of passengers with the intent of boarding light rail trains", too. If you are starting from the north on the bus, you will likely not transfer at this station if going north on light rail because that would be the wrong direction. If you are heading south, you will likely transfer at Tukwila International Station because light rail is faster. Tukwila International Station to Angle Lake is only two stops by light rail, but 8 stops by RapidRideA. Vanguard1007:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification that the two Sound Transit bus stops also stop on International Blvd. However, there is no evidence that the Port of Seattle's information is intern written. Sound Transit may be the intern written work. In fact, I read that Sound Transit is taxing cars at far higher than the true value showing that they are either controlling (maybe that's why they want their station to sound grandiose) or dishonest. That is not my accusation but the accusation of many citizens and some legislators. (see https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sound-transit-uses-inflated-car-values-to-collect-higher-tab-fees/ Sound Transit uses inflated car values to collect higher tab fees Vanguard1007:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vanguard10 This seems like a disagreement over words in an effort to be incredibly precise on the language. I believe you have the best of intentions, the changes to me seem to make the article less “conversational” and more “academic” and “formal.” This is to me knowledge, discouraged on Wikipedia because it makes articles harder for casual readers to understand. The bus stops were built as part of the station complex and are, as Bruce said, connected to the platform by a bridge. There’s also a kiss and ride lot for the station complex in the same area as the bus stops. In this case, in American English, I believe it’s entirely accurate to say the station is served by those bus routes. --RickyCourtney (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your ideas. The idea of making Wikipedia less academic and more conversational is an interesting idea. Simple English Wikipedia is for use of basic language but I don't think there is anyone wanting to transform to that standard. I must point out that it is incorrect to say that "the bus stops were built as part of the station complex and are, as Bruce said, connected to the platform by a bridge." The bus stops are not connected to the platform. If they were, I would strongly support Bruce's idea. The bus stops are not at the bridge. The bus stops are likely pre-existing the station because there's a Hilton Hotel on International Blvd. as well as an intersection.
The solution, I believe, is to incorporate RickyCourtney's idea of conversational language where possible. However, his analysis has an error because of his incorrect understanding that the bus stops are in some way connected to the bridge or platform. The station is adjacent to International Blvd. and the bus stops on that road, just as the Hilton Hotel is adjacent to the station but shouldn't be characterized as the hotel being in the station or serving the station. Vanguard1020:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an entry about a transit station, not a computing concept or arthouse cinema, so conversational language is the only acceptable form of writing. Almost every literate person on the planet would understand that a bus "serving" the station would be using stops adjacent to the train platform. The bus stop was rebuilt for the station, and is physically under the bridge. You keep bringing up distance, which is a weak argument and one that can easily be refuted: using Google Maps, the distance between the northbound bus stop and platform is 185 feet, while the walk to the terminal is ten times longer...by this logic, the station is merely adjacent to the airport and does not serve it. It makes no sense at all. SounderBruce21:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, have you actually been to this station? The situation is a bit difficult to describe unless you’ve been there. When I would take King County Metro Route 180 from Kent and connect to light rail, the bus stops right under the bridge. You step off the bus and there are signs with information on the light rail and bus systems right there. The elevator and stairs are just steps in front of you. *A* bus stop may have existed at this location before, but the stops there today are clearly part of the station complex. If I’m not mistaken, the bus stops there before were taken out and replaced with new concrete areas built by Sound Transit. The stops aren’t right under the platform like at Tukwila, but they are a part of the same station just the same. --RickyCourtney (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, commenting about SounderBruce)I am not advocating your "by this logic". Are you? The picture that you link (21:37 5 May 2018) is deceptive. On the other hand, this picture (thumb) is better. It shows a bus. If that were the bus stop, SounderBruce's logic might apply. However, the bus station is below that in the picture. According to Google maps, when one is at the station, one must take the enclosed walkway crossing the street, go down and exit the station, then walk back across the street to the bus shelter in the photo. The shelter is clear not in the station. The Port of Seattle, a reliable source, deems the bus stop as adjacent to the station, not the buses serving inside the station. I cannot help but wonder if a Wikipedia user has a grandiose view of the station and, therefore, is opposed to the simple word of "adjacent" to the station. I have not encountered so much resistance to a single word. At this rate, it might be 40, not 20 year, to discuss each sentence of the article. . Please, let's cooperate and edit accurately. The word "adjacent" can be very conversational. Vanguard1021:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm here in response to the 3O request, but I'm having some trouble working out exactly what the dispute is because this thread doesn't include a link to the disputed text. I looked at this version of the article and checked every mention of the word "bus." In this form, the article says the airport "is served by" these bus stations, which the sources cite in this thread fully support. The article lists the bus stations as being on the "Street," which I don't think any of you dispute. It also says that a bus line goes "to" the station. What exactly is the dispute? Could either of you please post a link or quote some text to exactly what the problem might be?
Since there are three people here and not just two, 3O doesn't really apply, but I'll put in my two cents if you think it'll help.
Another thing that bears saying: The 3O request was not neutrally written. It blamed one editor by name for the conflict and contained information supporting one side but not the other. I get that everyone here thinks they're right, but the point of 3O and RfCs is to bring in people with fresh eyes and no preconceptions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Darkfrog24: I initially commented to provide a sort of "third opinion," but although I was not involved in the editing process, I have contributed to the article, so I lack some objectivity. But I digress, let me jump in and attempt to answer your question while staying as neutral as possible:
OLD VERSION(written by SounderBruce and identical to the wording used when the article achieved GA status): "SeaTac/Airport station is also served by five bus routes using bus stops on International Boulevard to the east of the station."
PROPOSED VERSION(written by Vanguard10): "SeaTac/Airport station has service by five bus routes that use adjacent bus stops on International Boulevard to the east of the station."
This discussion, in my opinion, is about the quirks of the english language. Is it acceptable to say that buses "serve" a station when they stop at a bus stop that's about 300-500 feet away from the platform, or is that too far of a walk and would need to be considered an adjacent stop? I realize this is a difficult and very subjective question. Cheers! --RickyCourtney (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well my opinion is that the old version is better. The second version does not establish what the stops are adjacent to. But the second version is not so bad that it couldn't be in the article. It's six to one, slightly less than half a dozen to the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Darkfrog24, for your help. You wrote that you weren't sure what the problem is. I will present the problem. (As a backstory, SounderBruce tried to get administrators to block me by alleging a blockable offense in a noticeboard. This was rejected. That is not very nice.)
Problem: How should bus service be described in the last paragraph?
SounderBruce's apparent answer: not fully explained but he constantly uses Twinkle to revert multiple different re-wording attempts. Instead of reverting to what I think is better, I have offered many different variations but have received little explanation. The most explanation that I've received is an accusation that the Port of Seattle uses interns to write their webpages and should not be trusted. The Port of Seattle is the owner of the airport and does not say that they use interns for their publications.
SounderBruce is encouraged to explain his beef. What I can come up with is either he want it only his way and/or he does not want to say the bus stops are adjacent to the station but wants to suggest that they are the station or that the station has bus service. He is encouraged to explain.
The problem that I see is that Wikipedia should strive for accuracy. One way is to simply state that bus stops are adjacent to the station on International Blvd. "Adjacent", "near", "located outside of the station" are all possibilities. Snowfire suggested (following section) to list it as "bus and subway connections" or, in this case, it would be "bus connections", then list them. That would be a compromise ok to me because the reader can conclude that connections include leaving the station.
One should not dismiss this as semantics because SounderBruce has repeatedly used Twinkle to revert the many different suggestions that I edited.
Interim conclusion:Support SnowFire's compromise immediate below: in the hopes of cooperation, I support SnowFire's list. It is not the best way but is the best way that someone else suggested. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptation of SnowFire's compromise proposal: Last paragraph would be replaced with this
Bus 560: to West Seattle, Burien, Renton and Bellevue
Bus 574: to Tacoma and Lakewood in Pierce County
(Alternate is to list Bus 560 twice, the southbound terminus of Bellevue and the northbound terminus of West Seattle)
Lists are not appropriate for articles comprised mostly of prose (see WP:USEPROSE), especially with specific details that change on a regular basis. It's better to be vague and summarize the general destination of bus routes instead of listing route numbers and their individual destinations. SounderBruce04:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEPROSE does permit lists as appropriate. It reads " Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain lists." (bold added). It also suggests lists when there's a description, which the above does. It doesn't read "Bus 574" but reads "Bus 574: to Tacoma and Lakewood in Pierce County" which is a description. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#%22Children%22_(i.e.,_Indentation)
This proposed list is not my proposal but I support this as a compromise. It is supported by User:SnowFire.
Again, SounderBruce vetos an idea but proposes no compromise. I have further compromise ideas but it seems pointless to make the 6th or 7th compromise idea, all of which are rejected by SounderBruce and no alternatives proposed by him. Furthermore, if one is vague, as SounderBruce suggests, the text that SounderBruce wants is not vague. It has specific bus routes and destinations. For the sake of cooperation, if SounderBruce wants vague, I am open to that. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanguard10: See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists for the specific guidance on embedding a list like this into an article. Generally, prose (which is what we have now) is preferred. I don't see how a table is necessarily better. The Manual of Style says that, in an article, if something can be explained equally well in a table or prose, we use prose. --RickyCourtney (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to be prose, then SounderBruce should speak or forever hold his peace. In other words, rather than keeping on using Twinkle to revert, SounderBruce should suggest compromise alternates if he wants them to be considered. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanguard10: I don't think there are any alternates that need to be suggested. The editor who provided the Third Opinion (thanks Darkfrog24!) said that the old version is better. I originally came here to give a third opinion as well (albeit less neutral), I agree that the old version is better. I would suggest that we revert to that revision. --RickyCourtney (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wegerje (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC) New Proposal: SeaTac/Airport station is served by five bus routes: 156, 180, 560, 574 and A Line. (Then ... describing the five lines.) Cut to the chase folks. Leave finding the bus stop you want to the signage at the location. Or let the riders use Google or OpenStreetMap to find their bus stop. This article would have done best by printing a small layout map of the station and the bus stops. (See OpenStreetMap's version of the station.) imho. Every bus stop user has to use the bridge. Two of the stops require crossing a street to get to. Using the words "also", "is serviced by" and "adjacent" is just so much unneeded verbiage. Again imho.[reply]
I think "adjacent" is not inaccurate so much as open to multiple interpretations, some of which may be inaccurate (can something be adjacent if there's a street in between?). It's not a dealbreaker but that's part of why I like the first text more.
Snow's list doesn't look like a bad list, but it should not be used instead of clear text in the lede. Whether or not to add this list to the article is a separate issue from what the text should read.
It looks like the real problem here is user conduct and a power struggle. You two are butting heads and that's fueling the fire. It sounds like you feel SounderBruce is exhibiting inappropriate ownership behavior of this article, and he may be. But you are also being a bit imperious, demanding that SounderBruce prove to you why your changes are not improvements. Generally it is the person who proposes the changes who must prove that they are improvements. The ball is in your court, not his.
So could you do that now, briefly? Could you tell me why your text is better than Sounder's?
I also have an exercise to propose, if you're amenable. Pretend that you are Sounder and write out the compromise text that you think he should propose. Let me see it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SounderBruce's version is inaccurate because the bus routes do not serve the station. .For some routes, the rider must cross International Blvd. on an overhead walkway, take an elevator to the street level, re-cross International Blvd. again and walk a little. That's not a bus line serving the station like other bus lines that serve the University Street station (there are bus stops inside the University Station) Only in the broader sense does the bus routes serve the station. In the same way, Delta Airlines serves the station, too, meaning the station also has service to London, Paris, and San Francisco. Here is SounderBruce's only acceptable version. That, in itself, suggests unwillingness to compromise.
^Metro Transit System: Southwest Area(PDF) (Map). King County Metro. September 2016. Archived from the original(PDF) on December 24, 2016. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^"Public Transit". Port of Seattle. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^Metro Transit System: Southwest Area(PDF) (Map). King County Metro. September 2016. Archived from the original(PDF) on December 24, 2016. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^"Public Transit". Port of Seattle. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^ abcd"Public Transit : Bus Service". Port of Seattle. Retrieved 5 May 2018. Note: in order to use southbound bus stops, riders must cross International Boulevard eastward using an overhead walkway, reach the street level, then re-cross International Boulevard westward. The Port of Seattle describes the bus stops as adjacent, not in the station Cite error: The named reference "adjacent bus service" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^Metro Transit System: Southwest Area(PDF) (Map). King County Metro. September 2016. Archived from the original(PDF) on December 24, 2016. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^"Public Transit". Port of Seattle. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^Metro Transit System: Southwest Area(PDF) (Map). King County Metro. September 2016. Archived from the original(PDF) on December 24, 2016. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^"Public Transit". Port of Seattle. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^Metro Transit System: Southwest Area(PDF) (Map). King County Metro. September 2016. Archived from the original(PDF) on December 24, 2016. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^"Public Transit". Port of Seattle. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^Metro Transit System: Southwest Area(PDF) (Map). King County Metro. September 2016. Archived from the original(PDF) on December 24, 2016. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^"Public Transit". Port of Seattle. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Note that this is taken from the original version, which made it clear in the first sentence that bus stops are not within the station, but are adjacent (without using a contentious word like adjacent). The downtown tunnel stations are extremely unique in having buses use the same platform as trains, so it should not be used as a counterexample; a normal surface station like Columbia City station is a better comparison, with buses that serve the station using stops that require a street crossing or two. They are adjacent but also serving the station, and thus the former does not need to be mentioned. More complex stations like Capitol Hill station also use bus stops that require a street crossing or two, and yet buses are still said to serve them.
I suggest that Vanguard10 cease with the use of personal attacks and defamation of myself. This isn't about ownership, but merely making sure that information is not misleading without violating WP:NOR and WP:V. Other editors have stepped in to say that the reverted versions had flaws that warranted reversion, and I agree with them. SounderBruce04:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks were made or intended against SounderBruce by me. Everything said was factual. Very early on, courtesy and respect [[1]] and [[2]] were afforded to SounderBruce, which were responded to with SounderBruce's constant reverting with Twinkle, refusal to accept anything but his own single version. It is SounderBruce who made personal attacks, falsely accusing me of defamation, calling me "childish", and unsuccessfully trying to get me blocked. If calling someone "childish" isn't a personal attack, what is?
I am, however, optimistic that SounderBruce has finally offered one alternative to his version. Yippee! Not perfect, but I suggest that we go with this version because it is a definite improvement over his first version by faintly forcing the reader to think more. Perhaps, a third vote of support (or nobody opposing) and we can put this controversy to rest in a few hours? Vanguard10 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's work to not start an edit war. GA criteria include that there are no edit wars so let's maintain that standard.
There appears to be a great opposition by SounderBruce in the above section about the word "adjacent". SounderBruce appears to want the bus service to be in the station. Sorry it is not. That discussion should remain there (above section). This discussion is appeal to everyone, including SounderBruce not to jeopardize the GA bestowed to this article. Let's cooperate! Vanguard10 (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In order not to jeopardize the GA status, I have asked for a Third Opinion on that noticeboard. Third opinions advantages are as follows: "The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes." Previously, SounderBruce sought to get Vanguard10 blocked but that was not successful. Trying to get someone blocked is very aggressive and not the way to silence an established article writer, like Vanguard10. Peace. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful comment from someone just at SEATAC's train station semi-recently: you are both correct. Vanguard is correct that technically speaking, the buses are not literally at the train station, like they are at some of the downtown stops like University Street or Chinatown. Bruce is correct that, for suburban usage, multiple forms of transit are referred with by the same name and considered the same station. So... either phrasing is accurate. It's not worth fighting over.
I will add that, as best I can tell, other Wikipedia articles on stations tend to have a special "Connecting service" or the like section when there's multiple potential nearby lines (e.g. Jamaica (LIRR station)), while a single possible connection that's right next door / outside will simply be referred to as the same station (e.g. Hammonton station or the like). But I'm not sure if that's an actual policy or just a coincidence. Also, this is not the Third Opinion. I saw this conversation due to potential accidental canvassing, so make of that what you will. SnowFire (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. That comment is not really about GA, which is this section. However, your idea of Jamaica (LIRR station) is very reasonable. It gives the idea of connections. It can be presumed that the some connections are adjacent. It is not misleading by saying that the station has bus service. Want to reproduce it in that format in this article? Vanguard10 (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
