Jump to content

Talk:TransLink (British Columbia)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Ontario transit comparisions

What is up with all of the comparisons to Ontario. Unless someone objects I will delete them:

  • The system is similar to GO Transit in Greater Toronto Area.
  • ...offers similar services as WheelTrans in Toronto.
  • Unlike Ontario's Drive Clean program...

-- Webgeer 21:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I say go ahead. •Zhatt• 21:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Added Fares section

I have added a link to my new TransLink Fares (Vancouver) article

Is there a need for a separate article on fares? It seems that the information in the TransLink Fares (Vancouver) article could easily be merged into this one. Thoughts? --Ckatz 01:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think they need to be merged. The new fares article is actually nice, and quite interesting, but wouldn't really flow well within the main TransLink article. I think that they should be kept the way they are now. Canuck89 02:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work

I did not expect to find such an extensive coverage of the local transit system here on wiki, and I was pleasantly surprised. Good work everyone :P LG-犬夜叉 02:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Organization changed

As of November 30, 2007, the governing structure of TransLink has been changed from the old system to the one listed in the proposal. The legal name of the new organization has also changed, although the shortened form has remained. Sources have been added in case you want to verify them. Allan kuan1992 06:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

HandyDart & pendergast

Wondering if the departure of Tom Pendergast as CEO and the Jan 2009 shift to MVT Canada (and the current strike) for HandyDart services should be reflected in ths article? Canuckle (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Parking Lots

This article doesn't mention, and I've long wondered, how and why and where does Translink have the authority over parking lots? Translink apparently has the control over what to charge for parking on city parking lots. Can anyone add a section about this? This has come to light recently because Translink is imposing a increase on parking lot rates in Vancouver, but I don't understand how they have that authority. --Mezaco (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ridership

I thought one could add the daily ridership of Translink somewhere. Daily ridership can be averaged from statistics quoted in a recent letter from the chair of Translink, published by the Vancouver Sun. http://www.vancouversun.com/Opportunity+Metro+Vancouver+transit+foundation/3940875/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.170.203 (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Article naming standards

I've looked at naming and disambiguation methods used in TransLink related articles and it looks like they could use some tightening up.

The first thing I noticed was Evergreen Line (Vancouver). Vast majority of TransLink related articles are disambiguated with "(TransLink)": Expo Line (TransLink), Granville Station (TransLink), Royal Oak Station (TransLink), 22nd Street Station (TransLink), Aberdeen Station (TransLink), and so on. I left a note on Talk:Evergreen Line (Vancouver) suggesting the move and will do so if no one objects.

While looking through what-links-here for Evergreen Line, I noticed the following distinct naming standards for station articles:

There doesn't seem to be much consistency since all three lines have a mix of spaced and non-spaced station names. A claim could be made that dashes are used for "attraction" names (Main Street – Science World Station, Langara – 49th Avenue Station), but this breaks down when Production Way – University Station has spaces and VCC–Clark Station doesn't.

TransLink uses short dashes with no spaces on http://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules-and-Maps/Transit-Maps/SkyTrain-Station-Maps.aspx. The PDFs linked there are a total mess, with some not including the secondary name at all (Stadium, Joyce, Sperling), some having short dashes with spaces (Main Street - Science World, YVR - Airport), and some having short dashes without spaces (Richmond-Brighouse). The map at http://tripplanning.translink.ca/FILE/Apps/Info/images/skytrain_map.png (linked at http://tripplanning.translink.ca/hiwire?.a=iScheduleLookupSearch&LineName=999&LineAbbr=999) uses long dashes with no spaces, and frustratingly enough gives airport station's name as "YVR Airport" with no dash at all.

Absent some authoritative source I've missed, it looks like we might have to come up with a standard for use on Wikipedia ourselves.

I briefly looked around and Toronto's dash-named stations are Bloor-Yonge (TTC) (short dash) and Sheppard–Yonge (TTC) (long dash), Calgary's are Somerset–Bridlewood (C-Train) and McKnight–Westwinds (C-Train) (long dash), Fish Creek – Lacombe (C-Train) (long dash, with space) but also Erlton/Stampede (C-Train) (slash) and Victoria Park / Stampede (C-Train) (slash, with space). Down south, Seattle's light rail has compound stations named International District / Chinatown (Link station) (slash, with spaces) and SeaTac/Airport (Link station) (slash, no spaces). Admirably, MAX stations in Portland are all consistently named with slash and no spaces, and both LA Metro stations and BART stations are all with slash and spaces (in article titles).

Personally I would suggest standardizing on en dash, no space: Oakridge–41st Avenue Station, Joyce–Collingwood Station, Commercial–Broadway Station, Production Way–University Station, etc. However, if anyone feels strongly about this, I'm fine discussing using spaces. Thoughts?

Next time: discuss why TransLink is disambiguated with (British Columbia) but SkyTrain is disambiguated with (Vancouver), and whether U-Pass (Vancouver) and Waterfront Station (Vancouver) deserve non-TransLink disambiguations. :D --user:Qviri 21:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Realized spaces have been used for names with two or more words around the dash (i.e. there's other spaces before "Station"). That makes some sense but I'm not sure if that should be overriding, especially given the inconsistency it produces. Will attempt to locate relevant guidelines for use in article titles. --user:Qviri 19:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the dash issue is that even Translink isn't consistent. See here. For the VCC - Clark there is clearly a space after VCC, but down below for Richmond- Brighouse, there is only a space after the dash. As for the disambiguation of U-Pass and Waterfront Station; they should stay as (Vancouver) as they are not only related to Translink. The UPass is a province wide transport initiative, while Waterfront Station is now mainly a hub for Translink, but in the past has been a full fledged passenger station All the others, are specifically for Translink systems (i.e. built for translink service, not hosting anything else). Ravendrop 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Board of Directors info is out of date

I am a TransLink employee and a colleague has flagged that the Board of Directors list is out of date. Can I request that somebody verify the members and update it? As I work for the organization, it's difficult for me to make changes without being reverted due to conflict of interest.

The correct list of directors is here: http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Governance-and-Board/Board-of-Directors/Board-Members.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhenifer (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just do it! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
While another editor made the changes, Wikipedia encourages everyone to edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
OK! I'll make the changes myself when they next come along :) Jhenifer (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So what is it? A crown agency like BC Transit? A crown corporation like BC Ferries? Something else? Who owns it? The provincial government? Metro Vancouver? Private shareholders? All of the above? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Transit Police section

I propose to remove the word "allegedly" from this statement:

"A court case in which a woman was awarded $52,000 for allegedly being beaten by a flashlight-wielding officer, in an incident that occurred before the transition, confirmed such fears for some."

As the court ruled in the victim's favour, it is legally no longer an allegation but a statement of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.128.102 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That is supported by the source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Official website

Translink.ca as the website? I'm pretty sure it's translink.bc.ca. Antiv31 discuss 01:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The latter redirects to the former. At one point, at least fifteen years ago, there were provincial domains and that's when it was established so translink.bc.ca was correct then, but things have changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

proposed edits to overview section

Hi guys

Bit new to all this so apologies if am getting things a tad mixed up re: protocol.

I was trying to include a small edit to cover the Translink name itself and how it was influenced by the previously existing company in Northern Ireland (link below). I've had previous - somewhat rushed - attempts removed so i'd like to get the edit(s) cleared before making the change.

Translink (Northern Ireland) http://www.translink.co.uk/Corporate/About-Us/History/

At the minute the sentence I wish to edit reads: TransLink was created in 1998 (then called the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, or GVTA) and fully implemented in April 1999 by the Government of British Columbia to replace BC Transit in the Greater Vancouver

After my edits it would read: TransLink was created in 1998 (then called the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, or GVTA) and takes its name from a Northern Irish transit company Translink (Northern Ireland). TransLink BC was fully implemented in April 1999 by the Government of British Columbia to replace BC Transit in the Greater Vancouver

Any edits to my wording etc are much appreciated. I've included a link to the Translink NI wiki page as my source but could also use the website links to the company history pages and some academic pubs on the European influences on the creation of Canadian public identity (my current topics of study).

Thanks for the imput peeps!

TheDoctor699 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)TheDoctor699TheDoctor699 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about making mistakes: everyone does, and it is part of learning. I will post some useful links to your talk page to help you out on Wikipedia.
The issue that I have with your edit is that you have drawn a conclusion that because the NI company was formed first, the Vancouver company "takes its name from" the NI company. If you have evidence that the Vancouver company looked at the NI company and said, "well that's a sharp name, let's use that", then the edit is okay. It seems more likely to me that they chose the name without regard to the NI company, although I do not know that for a fact, so I would not add that into the article. Ground Zero | t 15:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, "it's" means "it is", which didn't make sense in that sentence. You meant to use "its", I'm sure. Ground Zero | t 15:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That they share a name and one came before the other does not mean that the latter takes its name from the former. Taking implies a conscious decision to replicate or emulate the name. A WP:RS would need to be found to support the idea that the government of BC intentionally named it after the Irish corporation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That might be difficult. Learned this in a recent interview with the head of Translink BC but can't really reference that, yet although i'm keen to share it comming from NI myself!! I'd be happy to dilute the comment for now and come back to it once the interview is out, providing they leave that part in for the broadcast of course ;) How would this sound (my edits in brackets)?
TransLink was created in 1998 (then called the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, or GVTA) and (was) fully implemented in April 1999 by the Government of British Columbia to replace BC Transit in the Greater Vancouver. (The company brand name 'TransLink' is identical to the one established in 1996 by the Northern Irish transit company, Translink (Northern Ireland).)
Again thanks for the imput etc
TheDoctor699 (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That version looks okay to me. Ground Zero | t 15:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


Great....can i edit the page now then? First edit - hurray lol! Thanks for the help guys!
TheDoctor699 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No. It doesn't look great.
Where did you hear the interview? We may be able to find it. All it is is coincidence at this point and at this point, there's a hatnote that deals with the coincidental naming. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
And to be clear it's preferential as there's TransLink (South East Queensland) as well that says nothing about either of the other two companies and the NI company says nothing about the similarly named companies. In short, we have a hatnote that deals with this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No. That is not exactly true. "TransLink" in BC use an upper case "L" while the one in Northern Ireland is "Translink" with lower case. There are many transit companies around the world which use similar names and they have not borrowed their branding from anybody else. This is only a coincidence. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair points to include. Apologies walter but I was the interviewer in this case and the broadcast is scheduled for next month. Cant give more details but the company name was really not a major point of the interview. A comment was just made that the name was suggested by an employee who'd seen the NI company name when in transit. Thought it was worth including here. Happy to tweak the sentence however, how about this?

TransLink was created in 1998 (then called the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, or GVTA) and fully implemented in April 1999 by the Government of British Columbia to replace BC Transit in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and assume many transportation responsibilities previously held by the provincial government. (The company brand name 'TransLink' is almost identical to the one established in 1996 by the Northern Irish transit company, Translink (Northern Ireland) and is also very similar to the Australian based transit company, TransLink (South East Queensland).

Also, happy to edit the other pages with the info. Again thanks for the imput guys, thik its almost ready to fire up! :D TheDoctor699 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, any more comments on this or are we happy with the wording now? Have also written similar edits for the other 2 wiki pages. TheDoctor699 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is all unreferenced hearsay and rumour. Even if your unpublished interview is accurate, that has no validation from official sources. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
We either need a trail of communication, BC does have access to information laws, that indicates that the name was borrowed from NI, or a statement from someone who states that that this was the case. Mentioning a coincidence in naming is WP:TRIVIA. Discussing causality is not.
While we're linking to new areas, please see the section on indenting at WP:TPO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TransLink (British Columbia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not in the archive though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TransLink (British Columbia). 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 13:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

July 1 2017 fares

Just so we're clear, these fares should not have replaced the existing info until they actually came into effect; currently the fares listed are not the fares in effect and articles need to reflect the present state of affairs, not the future, as per WP:CRYSTAL. If people wanted to add the new ones once they were announced, that should have been done in a new section until July 1 happened and then the existing fare info could have been updated. I'm not going to go through and revert at this point but in the future, let's do it properly. Joeyconnick (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

1) CRYSTAL is for articles. 2) This fares will come into effect on 1 July unless the world end or the economy completely collapses, in which case no one will care about this article let alone Wikipedia. However, I do agree that it should have waited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

People following this page are encouraged to check out this AfD and provide their input. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I don't know how I missed that article as part of my watchlist. Sweetnhappy (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Article is now deleted. The last version of the article can be viewed here. —Northwest (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Restored section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who nominated the article for deletion. As per WP:NOTTRAVEL. I don't believe Wikipedia is the right venue for listing up to date lists of fares, the consensus agreed. Now content has been placed back on the parent article by the above user. After reverting each others edits [1] this was discussed with the user on their talk page only be ignored. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Pinging users who participated in the discussion: @Ernestchuajiasheng: @Clarityfiend: @Joeyconnick: @Northwest: @Charlesdrakew: @Sweetnhappy: @TimTempleton: @Rhadow: @Walter Görlitz:. Also pinging @Davey2010: for an extra opinion. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the link to the now deleted article. You entirely missed the point of my discussion: it's encyclopedic and will be expanded over time. I'm trying to find prices prior to the July 1 change. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Lists of fares are not encyclopedic, it's travel guide content. I'm not sure how you think otherwise. Ajf773 (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
You keep looking at the current state of the article and you can continue to say the same thing over and over again, but you're not acknowledging what I'm saying. That's both rude and ignorant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
You're calling ME rude, given you removed my post on talk and left a unreasonable editing response? I'll acknowledge what your saying when you answer my initial question in a more informed response. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The edit notice on my talk page clearly states to discuss topics on the topic's talk page.
I felt I answered your question: this isn't a travel guide. It may have offered current fares, but it no longer does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
What are you refering to exactly that isn't a travel guide? The article itself, or the content I removed? Ajf773 (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The content I improved, and several other things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
How's it not a travel guide? Ajf773 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Already answered multiple times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
You have not answered it once. Ajf773 (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. Saying WP:ICANTHEARYOU is not the same as me not answering. You will find my answer here at 06:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) and in the AfD where I wrote essentially the same thing. You'll also see my reply in the article when I added historical content. You will also see my reply in the future when the fares change and we keep the current content to show how it has changed over time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD call for List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver

People are invited to comment on a call for deletion of List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver (and a number of similar pages) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Lahore. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

How to refer to Compass machines

Open discussion but specifically mentioning Northwest as they've been cleaning up a lot of articles lately... currently TransLink refers to the machines that sell Compass cards and tickets as "Compass Vending Machines" (CVMs). TransLink-related articles refer to either "Compass Ticket machines" or "Compass ticketing machines". I don't think either of those is optimal: Compass is mainly the card and it's certainly not just tickets. Given TransLink calls them "Compass Vending Machines", I think we should switch to that in all articles, although I would be fine with us dropping the proper name status and just using "Compass vending machines" (while keeping the CVM acronym as required). I don't actually think they deserve the full-capital treatment. Thoughts and opinions? Alternate ideas? —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been favouring "Compass ticketing machines" over "Compass vending machines" as it is more clear to what the machines dispense, as most articles the term is featured in don't directly link to and/or mention what Compass products are. Do they sell compassess? I joke, but if somebody came across a station article from a Google search, they may not read further than that article. Also, Compass cards are still a form of ticketing. I feel both terms are acceptable, but the term should be consistent in each article. For instance, for the Compass Card (TransLink) article, there's no reason for the reader to not know what Compass products are, so "Compass vending machines" is sufficient. At the end of day I'm fine with either.
Side thought, should Compass Card (TransLink) be moved to Compass (fare system)/Compass (Metro Vancouver)? There's more to Compass than just the cards. Compass fares gates and readers will soon accept contactless credit cards and mobile payment options. Purchasing a Compass card or ticket will no longer be required to use the Compass system. —Northwest (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think Compass card is fine, per WP:COMMONNAME. While Compass is a fare payment system, yes, it is most commonly recognized as and referred to by reference to the Compass card. The fare gates are not specifically "Compass" (one of my pet peeves is that for some reason TransLink always tied them to Compass as if they were integral to adopting an electronic payment method). But your point on this somewhat contradicts with your point on what to call the machines: so Compass is not just tickets. One could argue they are more the cards than the tickets but definitely the machines do not ticket in the sense of "I've been ticketed", so at the very least, they should probably be called "Compass ticket machines" rather than "ticketing machines". But the reason I prefer "Compass vending machines" is that yes, they do vend "Compass"... fares (whether they be cards or tickets). I suppose technically the long form would be "Compass fare vending machines" but I understand why that wasn't adopted. So if Compass is, by your second argument, more than cards and more than tickets, why are we calling the machines that vend those Compass-related products "Compass ticket(ing) machines"?
The fare gate readers accepting credit cards is not really anything to do with Compass... it's just the readers accepting something other than Compass products. The vending machines always have accepted credit cards, so there's not really a change on that front.
I think adopting the terminology used in reliable sources, which is to say following what TransLink calls them—"Compass vending machines"—is probably the best choice. But definitely it would be best to be consistent among all the station (and related) articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TransLink_(British_Columbia)/Archive_1&oldid=1154226519"