Talk:South Lake Union Streetcar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger proposal

I am proposing that South lake union trolley be merged into this article; it is about the same streetcar line but under the original name (before the SLUT incident). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There you go. Merger complete. Nothing in the other article that is salvageable. However, this article should include a sentence or two about the SLUT moniker. (Personally, I think Seattle should embrace the name, it'd be an excellent tourist draw and help pay for the line). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I found this page after reading about the SLUT acronym in the newspaper. I tried to mention a few details along with a reference. Bendono 04:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Operation Status

I do not think that the operator of the South Lake Union Streetcar is Link Light Rail. Link Light Rail is not an operator, but a transit system, the operator of the Link light rail is Sound Transit. As for the SLUS, I do not think Sound Transit is its operator. HManat23 16:08, 20 October 2007 (EST)

Image

I posted this very recent photo of two out of the three SLU Streetcars at the maintenance facility. I will update the image as the article progresses.Kgrr 14:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SLUS

SLUS doesn't only mean South Lake Union Streetcar, it's also an identification code for Video Games produced in the NTSC U/C Region. Example Image --66.168.19.135 (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Just a note, flagging the SLUT as controversial in the lead isn't in accordance with NPOV, particularly letting the facts speak for themselves. It's perfectly acceptable to include the controversial aspects of the SLUT, but it is unnecessary to expressly state that it is controversial as the description of the controversies related to the streetcar should make that obvious. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All things are subject to some debate and disagreement, of course, and it would be POV to say something is controversial for ordinary levels of disagreement. But I think it is fine to state that something is controversial if in fact it is controversial, that controversy is a prominent element. If you look at the rest of the article, you will see many points of controversy, all cited in the press. The fact is, the SLUT is controversial. And its appropriate and important to sum up the facts in the lead. That's why I think it should read that way. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Should SLUT name be in lead?

I think it definitely should, because as the cited article,"http://seattlepi.com/local/332081_slut18.html", says, the streetcar is commonly known as this. It may be more popular than the official name. Prominent common or colloquial names belong in the lead. Again this is about facts, it is not POV. Comments? Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't a reliable source, but when you type "South Lake Union" into Google, its first suggestion is "South Lake Union Trolley", but "South Lake Union Streetcar" isn't even there. --NE2 07:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the google news archives don't claim it to be a de facto title but mention the urban legend and t-shirts. I personally know one person who uses the title but she is just being cute. If it can be shown through reliable sources that it actually is used with prominence I would say it should stay. As it stands now the ratio of hits is not much from what I have seen. Time would be better spent expanding the meager mention in the prose, by the way.Cptnono (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Official name

At the First Hill Streetcar open house recently, I picked up some literature that officially refers to the existing SLUS/SLUT line as "Seattle Streetcar—South Lake Union Line," with the implication that other lines will be called "Seattle Streetcar—First Hill Line," etc. The official web site uses terms like "South Lake Union Line" as well. I've changed the introductory sentence, although the title should stay as it is. White 720 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)