Jump to content

Talk:Washington Metro/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Metrorail operator caught texting on job will not be fired.

Link from NBC. I think this is worth citing in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to discuss it, it needs to be discussed in the broader context of Metro's new one-strike-and-you're-out policy regarding train operator cell phone use and safety. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Move protected

Considering that move-warring is occurring, I've move-protected Washington Metro. Any moves will need to be determined through discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Washington Metro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Kept--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject District of Columbia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Virginia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maryland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rapid transit, SchuminWeb (talk · contribs), Golbez (talk · contribs), Mecaterpillar (talk · contribs), Epicadam (talk · contribs), Hgrosser (talk · contribs), Aude (talk · contribs), Adavidb (talk · contribs), Everything counts (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article for GA Sweeps.
Fixed except for the purplelinemd.com one that seems to be transient problem/flaky server. DMacks (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The images have lots of problems:
What is needed (other than to know how to spell "fare":): more detail of its non-replaceability in this context vs technical information about the image? DMacks (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
See WP:FURG.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I added more info, but I was mainly rambling. I repeat my request for specific guidance about what expansion is needed. DMacks (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is a pretty good one: File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA reduced 80%.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The FU rationale template appears to address all the standard FU rationale requrements. DMacks (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that this is the only FU image, we will consider this an addressed concern. I am not sure that this image is necessary, but for now it is O.K. as it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Overhauled them all, except for the safety and no-eating ones, as I suspect they violate FU and have invalid copyright tag too: I assume Metro posters are copyrighted by WMATA, so photos specifically of them can't be released under CC by a that photographer without clearance by WMATA. Further, these images are only decoration/incidental to article (not specifically discussed) so their inclusion is not within fair-use/non-free policy either. I'll ask around for confirmation (and welcome your thoughts too, Tony!), but will just remove them in a few days unless someone thinks they are 1) important to be here and 2) can clarify their copyright status. DMacks (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Please consider WP:NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Right. I'm saying I think their inclusion needs to be governed by that (rather than their given CC copyright tag, which I've since adjusted) and that their use here does not fall within fair-use guidelines. I've removed them from the article. DMacks (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please attempt to add WP:ALT text
Did some (comments welcome if I'm on the right track (sorry:) ). Network getting flaky, so will continue tomorrow. DMacks (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The alt text checker is down, so it will take me a bit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks O.K. to me so far.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Done, except for the Big M logo in the main infobox. I don't see any alt-text field for it. DMacks (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
According to the alt text checker about a half dozen remain undone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The alt text checker was lagged or caches pages or something like that. DMacks (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In truth the alt text is too detailed in the sense that it assumes to much knowledge. I have lived in DC for two summers and if you showed me File:WMATA Metro Center crossvault 2009.jpg, I would not know it is "Metro Center". The average reader would not look at a picture and recognize a "Breda car" or any specific station unless the proper wording appears in the picture. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images#What_not_to_specify.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The WP:ALT text looks fine except for the infobox. I have put in a request at WT:ALT to have that infobox jazzed up to accommodate WP:ALT text. Once this is done we can pass this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The template now accommodates alt text. Please add text to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I finished this up myself
Merged into first paragraph. Not much more I can think to say for that intro, so may as well jump right into the first item. DMacks (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I will monitor the progress of this review and review the article's quality rating after one week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been some progress on these concerns, but it is difficult to tell if it is a response or coincidental. I would appreciate some comment here about intent to resolve the remaining above. I will continue to monitor and reconsider the article in another week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I was drawn to this page and made edits specifically via the GAR flagging. DMacks (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. This GAR has been like pulling teeth. I have never had such an unresponsive group of active editors. Could you make your intent known with respect to the concerns above. If you do not intend to address them and want me to consider delisting the article let me know. If you are going to continue improving the article let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yikes:( Okay, I fixed the remaining deadlinks. I'll keep working on the other issues over next few days. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Great!!!! Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on acting general managers

Hello, Washington Metro. You have new messages at Template talk:Washington Metro#List of general managers.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basically, I need to know what people think about the inclusion of acting general managers on the template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit of current/past future tense

I think it is time to change the reference to the new line from in development to under construction. This think is going to happen, they have tunnels in place, roads closed, and station under construction. Whether it makes it to phase II and actually reaches Dulles is open to debate, but phase I is well under way. Boufa (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed – that definitely looks like construction to me. Everything counts (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Purple Line

The proposed (confirmed?) purple line is not mentioned at all in this article. Is there a reason for that? The silver line (under cunstruction) is mentioned and has a page of its own linked... and there exists a Maryland Purple Line article that could be linked to... So I was thinking maybe a new section that briefly states that the purple line is a proposed/planned/under-construction addition that runs between X and Y, scheduled to beging construction/open/whatever... with a link to the main purple line article. 65.207.54.194 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Before saying "not mentioned at all" perhaps you should do a ctrl-f :) I see a whole paragraph devoted to the purple line. --Golbez (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 ridership calculations

Seems like the WMATA is now posting daily ridership levels for the system. [1] I added up every single day in 2010 and got a yearly ridership of 213,806,497 passengers, corresponding to a daily ridership of 590,625 passengers (based on 362 days of service). If someone could double-check my math for accuracy before I add it to the article, that would be great.

Note: Daily ridership calculated from here will be different from the APTA numbers used throughout the article, since the APTA publishes numbers based strictly on unlinked passenger trips, whereas the WMATA data should be the actual number of passengers using the system. -Multivariable (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

362 days of service? Which days were missed?
Also, I have to say, that takes diligence, writing down the ridership numbers for over 300 dates. I don't think I'd have the patience for it.
Lastly, how would one cite this final figure? I'm sure that everyone would just loooooove 365 citations for all of these numbers... SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No need for 365 citations: The link [2] leads to monthly links, 12 would be the maximum. Any idea why Metro reports the same exact bus ridership on every weekday this year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedofc (talk • contribs) 05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a note if you click on individual dates that states, "Metrobus ridership figures... represent the average for the previous 30 days. Actual Metrobus ridership figures will be added to this report in approximately one month." Go figure. Regarding the 362 days, it's because that was the total number of dates that I ended up summing (I could go through again to figure out exactly which ones are missing). For example, December 2nd is missing from the December 2010 list. And yes, I think citing the archive page as another editor suggested would be fine for this. I just wished WMATA just gave us a yearly number somewhere instead. -Multivariable (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I re-added up all the numbers and got the same total, so I will update the article accordingly. For reference, dates missing from daily data: October 13, 14, and December 2, 2010. -Multivariable (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I rode Metro on October 14 and December 2. Should I be offended that Metro refused to count me at $4.85 each way?
Otherwise, great work, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bag search only test?

These two sources say it was just a test in september, something no other sources made sufficiently clear, unless I missed it. (Haven't checked your sources, which probably overlap ones I've read):

  • http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/22139?c=infrastructure_protection "At the meeting, according to reports, transit agency police officials said they had conducted screenings at Metro stations two days in December and no one refused them o Metro Transit Police Deputy Chief Ron Pavlik told the council, that feedback had been positive."
  • http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Metros-Show-of-Force-112983134.html "Despite all this, Metro Transit Police Captain Kevin Gaddis told the crowd that the five station checks that have already taken place, resulting in about 100 searches, were all “successful.” Does that mean MTPD nabbed the next Richard Reid? No. When pressed, Gaddis said this meant the screenings were completed with a minimum of passenger delay, and that a “show of force” was made against terrorism."

So unless I'm wrong this factoid should be added. I'll do it if no one wants to hop on it :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The first article makes it seem like the bag searches were implemented on random days, in this case two days in December, rather than just tests. It seems like the searches were started, and then ended when public reaction wasn't favorable. Neither of the sources specifically say that they were "tests", though I guess you could make that argument since the searches were ceased after public opposition to it. -Multivariable (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to reflect reality, whatever it is. Now if you read the official site, it doesn't sound like they've stopped doing it, though I'm pretty sure they have. I think it speaks to the amateur imprecision of most news agencies now a days that it's hard to get the facts straight. (Or else of us wiki editors for now reading enough WP:RS to get the facts. I've got a big list of google searches but haven't read them all. ;-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of concern of breaking NPOV on this matter, I'm not going to edit directly about the bag searches (I have strong opinions on the matter). I would, however, like to caution about drawing conclusions that aren't made in the sources, and where it is ambiguous, to leave it out entirely. Considering that the matter is still a current event, it might be prudent to wait a month or so and see how it plays out before writing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
NPOV means keep the editing that way, not that your personal opinions have to be. (Or I and 999 other people would have been kicked out of Israel-Palestine editing long ago.) Anyway, it's really a matter of going through all the sources til we find a reliable one that just makes it perfectly clear what the status is. Since I have to go to metro thursday, maybe I'll do that. Want to have my less-than-arrestable-speil down in case they are searching people. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I was concerned that my own strong opinion on the matter will taint my editing of it. That's why I'm keeping clear of it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Just wanted to pass on a link to a Virginia House bill funding expansion studies, if anyone wants to discuss expansion more. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.55: matt91486 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that is the US House of Representatives not the VA House of Delegates. Racepacket (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization

After a lot of work, we got the article to pass GA. I would hope that users would give serious thought and discussion of any proposed reorganization of the article here before implementing the reorganization in article space. While new users have a lot of enthusiasm during their first month of editing -- which is admirable -- the current state of the article represents a lot of thought by a number of editors which should be discussed and considered. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

New station names

This is fairly straightforward about the new approved station names, and I'll take care of it later this evening: http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5081

Just want to put this somewhere before I forget about it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is important for the stations that are actually being renamed. But how should we deal with the stations where WMATA has designated a "primary" name? I think those names (and article titles) should be changed as well to use the "primary" name and only include the subtitle in the article itself. As far as I'm concerned, the WMATA board's action is simply an extension of WP:COMMONNAME. Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
For stations with subtitles, e.g. Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan, I agree with you that the article should be Woodley Park (WMATA station). How to work the subtitles into the articles and the infoboxes is something else entirely, and will require some more thought. Like I said, I'll take care of it, but first I have to run a couple of errands. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too difficult. In the infobox you can simply use a break and the small tag to make the subtext appear under the name, for example: 
Woodley Park<br><small>Zoo/Adams Morgan</small>
As for the article text a simple parenthesis will probably suffice, or the station name could possibly be left as is with just an explanation in the text. Best, epicAdam(talk) 00:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay... the page moves are done, and List of Washington Metro stations has been fully updated. Not done yet:

  • Changing article text (other than the aforementioned List of Washington Metro stations)
  • Changing infoboxes
  • Updating links and references on whatever various pages have them
  • Any work on Commons related to this
  • Actually citing the aforementioned press release (because the first and second bullet points are not done yet)

So there's more to do, but I need a break for now. I'm also breaking in a new keyboard tonight, and am still getting used to where things are, and need to do a full typing session with it (to see if it's comfortable to use) rather than simply editing existing text. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a ready-made citation for the press release:

<ref name="WMATA 2011 station renamings">{{cite press release |title=Station names updated for new map |publisher=[[Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority]] |date=2011-11-03 |url=http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5081 |accessdate=2011-11-05 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/62yKzsSXn |archivedate=2011-11-05 }}</ref>

SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So NoMa – Gallaudet University (WMATA station) is now completely changed across the encyclopedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to be putting in hospital symbols (as listed in press release) where the subtitle would go? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Train2104. The hospital "H" is a symbol next to the station name on the map, similar to the parking symbol; it's not part of the station name. Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Commons categories up for speedy move. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Navy Yard – Ballpark (WMATA station) done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we put up all the other categories for renaming to "foo (WMATA station)"? One caveat: from my experience with NYC Subway station renames, Commons apparently doesn't like endashes in category names and the admins will use hyphens. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the other should be switched to the "(WMATA station)" convention as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you OK with the hyphens? If so, I'll put them up for renaming. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New names--jumping the gun a little?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Rather than cross-posting this same topic across many talk pages (don't do that, by the way), let's have it in one place. As I have already responded to this topic at Talk:King Street – Old Town (WMATA station) before discovering your cross posting of the same topic, let's just have the discussion there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me, we're jumping the gun a bit on these new station names. Yes, I see the November 3, 2011 announcement from Metro, confirming the new names. But as I understand it, the changes are to go into effect in June, 2012. As of this morning, when I rode the Red Line into work, the signs still say New York Ave-Florida Ave-Gallaudet U. And the train operator announced the station that way. Now, granted, this particular train operator was, until recently, announcing "Silver SpringS" with an S. But Metro's website is still using the old names. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Cellular network

In my opinion, article need information about work cellular network in metro. For example, in Russian Wikipedia in article "Moscow Metro" (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D1.8F_.D1.81.D0.B2.D1.8F.D0.B7.D1.8C_.D0.B8_.D0.98.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.BD.D0.B5.D1.82) have part about "Cellular network and the Internet".

Part text (translate): "Cellular network covered most of the stations of the Moscow metro. It also provided many of the bond transitions, bending and moving escalator. However, the availability of coverage and signal strength vary widely, depending on the particular station (movement), as well as the cellular operator."

Also Russian Wikipedia have special article "Cellular network in Moscow Metro" (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5), it's information about each mobile network operator and every station.

Sorry for my English.

AndreyKovalevsky (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Metrorail

I don't have my copy of Great Society Subway at hand, but... I mean, http://www.wmata.com/rail/ uses "Metrorail" all over the place. How is that not an official usage? --Golbez (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the book at hand (e-reader) it says: "Since 1968 Washington's rapid transit system has been called "Metro." Because this name is used for transit in many cities, many publications, and this book's subtitle, refer to "the Washington Metro" for clarity. After Metro's operator took over the area's private bus companies in 1973, it termed the merged bus service "Metrobus." Soon afterward, some Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority documents began referring to "Metrorail." This term - apparently coined by the Washington Post and Washington Star reports - was never officiall adopted, nor has it caught on among riders, but it remains in some Authority documents and signange and in the Washington Post."
That said, I do think it's a little silly to say that is "unofficial" here. We can simply change the wording to say, "The Washington Metro, commonly referred to as Metrorail or simply "the Metro", is the rapid transit..." That way we're not making a judgment by declaring any terminology to be "official" or not. Perhaps it would be relevant to discuss the name in the history section, but it need not be presented in the lead. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Automatic Train Control

The section about train control mentions that trains have been under manual operation "Since July 2009", but cites an outdated Washington Post article. Does anyone have authoritative information on when (if) trains were returned to ATC? 130.58.246.76 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Silver Line

There is a table embedded in this page titled "Washington Metro Lines Detail" that has the old eastern Silver Line terminus listed (Stadium-Armory). The new terminus is now Largo Town Center. Check Wikipedia's own article on the Silver Line (Washington Metro) for verification. I'd change it myself but the obvious approaches to editing the table on the page are of no use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.109.10 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is corrected. The table was part of a template, a separate page linked from several articles. —ADavidB 06:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

track gauge spec

The summary table beside the top of this article says that the gauge is 4' 8.25" ( "1/4 inch under standard"), but the articles on all the individual lines say they are 4' 8.5" ("standard gauge"). Which is correct? 209.6.73.78 (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

High-resolution maps

Of the maps currently in the article, some are backed up by high-resolution versions (accessible with 2 clicks), but some are not available at any higher level of detail. Even on a large-format display, it is nearly impossible to make out the station names or any other text labels. Can better, more readable maps be found? Reify-tech (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Planned Yellow Line Extension to Lincolnia

On the website linked below is a note about a planned extension of the Yellow Line from Pentagon Station to Lincolnia, according to the site owner, provision was made in the form of stub tunnels at the Yellow Line level for this exension. I am posting here as this looks like a good target for research and addition to the article.

Below the Capital:Pentagon Stub Tunnels

Graham1973 (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Line Confusion

I think the listings of the eastern/northern termini for the yellow line under "Washington Metro Lines" are contradictory. While it says the terminus for Rush+ is Fort Totten, it says the terminus for rush hour (which is the same time as Rush+) is also Mt. Vernon Square. I think there needs to be a sidenote on what is meant by this. Mr. Nushmutt (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It says the terminus for Rush+ is Greenbelt, which is correct. The terminus for other rush hour trains is Mt. Vernon Square. The regular terminus is Fort Totten. Seems correct to me... -epicAdam(talk) 11:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I was confused by what was meant. Mr. Nushmutt (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Metrorail isn't Metro

There is a common misconception -- with an historical and socioeconomic explanation -- that Metrorail is Metro, but it isn't. See Metro - About Metro. I made some minor edits to the text but believe the article title should be changed to Washington Metrorail, and that a more appropriate icon to be used is here. . (I'm new here -- hope this is appropriate.) Whitaksm (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Washington Metro. 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 to let others know.

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 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2015

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. The consensus is that the current title is the most common name in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


Washington Metro → Washington Metrorail – I see this page was moved from Metro to Metrorail in 2007 and, for reasons I don't understand, it was moved back to Metro in 2009. Let's put it back to Metrorail for reasons I discuss on my talk page. Whitaksm (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt says "When it comes to moral judgments ... we think we are scientists discovering the truth, but actually we are lawyers arguing for positions we arrived at by other means."[1]
This is a story about WMATA's rail system -- I think we can all agree about that. The argument at hand is over what to call it. I think we -- and that includes me -- must work hard to think about this question like scientists instead of arguing like lawyers. I'll do my best.
First let me make the scientific or factual argument.
Metro is to Metrorail as Ford is to Mustang. There are Ford drivers, Ford mechanics, Ford owners, but if you have an article about Mustangs, you call them Mustangs or Ford Mustang. As I will explain below, Metro offers Metrorail, Metrobus, and Metroaccess. This is not an article about Metro, it is about Metrorail.
I'm not sure how to provide for more evidence that WMATA calls its rail service Metrorail but let's try this. Take a look at the icon on WMATA's home page: a big M with "Metro" spelled out underneath.[6] Click "Rail" on the homepage menu -- it is titled "Metrorail." Click "Bus" on the homepage menu -- it is titled "Metrobus." Click "About Metro" on the homepage menu -- it reads "The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) was created by an interstate compact in 1967 ... Metrorail and Metrobus serve a population of 5 million ... Metro began its paratransit service, MetroAccess, in 1994 ... "
I think the argument for calling Metrorail "Metro" is really pretty non-existent. Yes, NBC4 does write "Metro trains are no longer single-tracking ... " but that doesn't negate the fact that Metrorail isn't Metro any more than calling a Mustang a Ford makes them the same thing.
So why do people want to call Metrorail "Metro?" That brings me to the second point concerning the social psychology and historical issues that this question raises.
To begin with, I will assert that race and class have always been issues in the United States and in this continent before the country was founded, and that race and class have played a part in transportation ever since the first slaves were brought over here in cargo holds. I encourage anyone who is interested in the subject to listen to a terrific program aired on public radio called "Back of the Bus: Mass Transit, Race and Inequality," produced by TransportationNation and WNYC with support from the Rockefeller Foundation.
I live in Washington, DC, and think I know a fair amount about WMATA and public transit. Conifer, you say you live in Portland, OR, and are a train guy (girl?); I don't know where you live, Zzyzx11. Do you know much about WMATA? You may both be experts, I don't know. I do know that we have a segregated public transportation system here: Metrorail is majority white, and Metrobus is majority minority. We also have what you would expect in terms of service levels given the political realities: Metrorail provides better service to white and upper income people than does Metrobus to non-white and lower income people. Many white people I know would not think of ever stepping onto a Metrobus. (These of course are generalizations and there are exceptions.)
As for Zzyzx11's comment that Wikipedia's policy on article titles being "based on the most common name used by most reliable sources," I'm not sure what a "reliable source" is -- surely there is no more reliable source than WMATA itself. We know the N-word is common among some people, but I don't see why that is a meaningful standard.
Finally, I think efforts to make Metro become synonymous with Metrorail marginalize poor, minorities, and handicapped individuals. After all, if Metro isn't the entire system but only what the upper income white people ride, what's left for everyone else to ride? Not much, and too often that's the case. This is a pattern that we have seen before, but I don't think Wikipedia should continue to be a part of it. (Apologies for not having signed this before -- I was in a rush.) Whitaksm (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitaksm (talk • contribs) 14:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm very confused about your "N-word" sentence, can you please clarify? --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
AGF, there's nothing to suggest that this editor is a troll, even though their reasoning is a little unclear. Conifer (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Zzyzx11. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

References

  1. ^ JONATHAN HAIDT — THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND MORALITY June 12, 2014

No Explanation For Deviation From Standard Gauge

I skipped over to this article, because the article on Standard Gauge mentioned this on a short list of "Modern almost-standard gauge railways." It struck me as odd that something built so recently, would not be made to Standard Gauge. It's not as though a radically different width was chosen. I was disappointed that, other than specifying the rail's width in this system, nothing is said about it. I think it would be interesting to know why they opted for a non-standard rail. 68.65.37.10 (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be that the reason is not given because there are no reliable sources for it. I found an (uncitable) online reader comment to a Washington Post article from May 2008, stating that the 1/4-inch reduction in gauge was to "reduce swaying". —ADavidB 10:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Military considerations

Underground systems have been used as bomb shelters during war-time, and some have been specified with this use in mind. Something to consider here.


In a similar vein: non-standard gauge could be considered a defensive measure insofar as it prevents intrusion by non-authorized vehicles. Paris Metro planning was dominated by the attempt of local authorities to keep standard gauge vehicles from their network. In the end they compromised on the gauge, but reduced the tunnel size to prevent standard vehicles from entering the system.

Velocipedus (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

These may be true but we'd need good sourcing to add them. --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WMATA's new website, which you formerly had to go to explicitly as beta.wmata.com (press release about it), is now live as www.wmata.com and there is no way to avoid it. All the old press release links are now broken. Recently, User:Adavidb added (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Metro&diff=754322112&oldid=754224427) an archive link at archive.org for for http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5749, which is a release dated July 25, 2014 titled "Metro launches Silver Line, largest expansion of region's rail system in more than two decades". At Metro's site https://www.wmata.com/about/news/index.cfm?keyword=&month=7&year=2014 gives a link for it as https://www.wmata.com/about/news/pressreleasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5749. It would be easy to search and replace the whole article like this but unfortunately all the new links are broken. Clicking on any of the press release links on the WMATA page goes to a completely different press release. Hgrosser (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: You may get the correct news release when you click on the new URL format but then it seems to cache that particular release so that you get the same one always even with a different URL displayed in the browser bar. Hopefully WMATA will fix this so that the problem can be fixed with just a simple search and replace without having to manually add archive links to all the P.R. refs. Hgrosser (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Do we still need more updates?

This is the update message at the top of the page:

This article needs to be updated. In particular: some "as of" statements need updating. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (April 2017)

How can we work on making edits to remove this? I have already made several edits in the past couple of days.

Daybeers (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Rush+ service to be removed

Effective June 25, 2017, the following service changes are in effect:

  • Monday-Thursday: 5:00 am to 11:30 pm
  • Friday/Saturday: 5:00 am to 1:00 am (Saturday service starts at 7:00 am)
  • Sunday: 8:00 am to 11:00 pm
  • Rush+ Yellow Line service will be eliminated between Franconia-Springfield and Greenbelt

J4lambert (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Map

@Old Guard: Please stop reverting to the outdated (2013) diagram. If you object the presence of Purple Line in the map, please make a consensus here to have every last bit of info regarding PL removed from this article completely. The diagram is already clear in design language that the regional rails and PL are not part of the subway operation, they exist in the diagram to aid geograpgical and transportation references for the reader which are very common in trasport diagram. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sameboat: But that is one of the main problems I have - the map's design language does not clearly show the Purple Line as not part of Metro as it does for the commuter lines, in fact it looks to be a part of Metro due to having nearly the same prominence as the Metro lines and not mentioning MTA at all. I have made no indication of wanting to exclude Purple Line information from the article entirely, but given that this is Metro article, the main map should reflect an official map as other subway maps on Wikipedia do (in the US at least), so if insist on your map then feel free to remove the Purple and commuter lines unless you want me to as I feel the map is otherwise fine. The main reason said lines are not presently depicted in the official Washington maps is the low current/projected ridership that is comparable to the bus lines of the region, so it is more of a notability issue rather than being comprehensive/inclusive.Old Guard (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It is your own opinion. The PL still has its merit in the map, just like its presense in the prose. The design of the PL and commuter rail in my map uses different station icons, rail stroke width and font size to denote their difference with the subway operation. Everyone with basic cognitive skill can easily understand that. Your insistence to revert to an OUTDATED map is vandalism, IOW, presenting wrong information. -- 22:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sameboat: Notable enough for inclusion in the article (not the point being argued by me) doesn't mean every sentence needs to have a corresponding image. Here is a fact: the official Washington Metro map does not include the Purple Line (whom does not even have two completed stations - and whose construction is currently in jeopardy), and it doesn't include Metroway (your otherwise comprehensive map doesn't) or commuter rail apart from casual mentions. It is the same with BART and most other systems in the US - I have noticed you like to edit systems outside of the US and maybe it should stay that way as you as you don't seem to understand our mapping customs. The fact that you resort to ad hominem while at the same time not discussing the rest of my points shows you may have some sort of emotional or financial investment in the Purple Line (which has far more prominence on your map than the commuter lines regardless of my aesthetic opinion) and/or the map you have created, or are perhaps not accustomed to not getting your way. Unless you plan on fixing this and the rest of North America's major transit maps, I will continue to resist your changes here which are thus in imperfect judgment, for as long as needed - and for the same reason I will start to monitor any changes you make to North American articles.Old Guard (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Now you resort to falsely accusing me of the nonexistent "financial investment in the Purple Line". Feel free to bring this issue to the WP:ANB. I just can't stand that you would rather revert to an outdated map instead of discussing any change to the updated map. I can pretty much see where your intention to reduce the prominence of PL comes from. I would significantly reduce the PL or even remove it from the map when the authority has failed to appeal to an emergency ruling this August[7] which will undoubtedly reduce its chance to start any construction work in the near future. But before that, reverting to the outdated map is not acceptable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Update template

Can we remove the update template at the top of the article? I just updated one of the 'as of' statements, and the only other one in the article is part of the history of bag searches, and has its own citation. Daybeers (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Washington Metro. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I realize I took a liberal approach with removing external links with my most recent edit (following WP:LINKNO and WP:NOTLINK), so if someone would like to add back some of them, you're more than welcome, but there shouldn't be so many external links that there need to be headings for them. Thanks! Daybeers (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Tweak of first sentence

I did three things with this edit. First, there was a WP:REFERS / Use–mention distinction problem in that it was structured as though the phrase "Washington Metro" were the subject of the article. Second, yes, locals might call it simply "the train" with context, but this is not common enough to give so prominently. As someone who lives there, if a friend told me they took "the train" somewhere, I'd assume they meant Amtrak, MARC, or VRE unless the context were clear. Presumably almost any rail project could be called "the train." Finally, it was awkward to call the Metro "WMATA's rapid transit system" before explaining what WMATA is. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

System map

The system map is not the official WMATA system map, which is here

Here is WMATA's official system map (2019 version; I suppose it will be updated in 2022 when the rest of the Silver Line is opened), taken from their current web page: https://www.wmata.com/schedules/maps/upload/2019-system-map.pdf

The map currently displayed in this article shows a completely unfinished line (Purple Line), including portions not yet fully approved for construction.

(This same inaccurate map is also on the Infographics page, although in the context of the topic it is just giving an example of one type of infographic).BillDeeUS (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Track gauge 1,435 or 1,429?

According to the reference, track gauge is 1,429mm. 2001:E60:108E:9C25:81D1:4E9E:88A4:BC7 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Metro Map

Hi,

Can someone please find and upload the new official Metro map with the Silver Line extension and the new names for the stations? The current map on the infobox shows the silver line as projected, and also has the old names for the stations. Dmford13 (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I've drafted an updated version of c:File:Washington Metro diagram sb.svg with the Silver extension reflected properly and the station name changes from September 11 included. I know this isn't the file currently in the infobox for this page, but all of the pages for the individual lines have it, so I think it might be worth switching over since the 2013 map on this page is pretty dated. I intend to upload the updated map on or about November 15. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Future Expansion update

I think we can remove the Silver Line expansion from the Future Plans category since it opened on Nov. 15, 2022. SteelersDiclonious (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

But then that information should--after rewording--be moved to a certain place in the History section. I might try to do that, either on my lunch break or when I get home from work this evening (US EST). Uporządnicki (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see the above response until after removing the section and putting a sentence in the Stations section. Feel free to add former content to the History section, as applicable. —ADavidB 17:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Route Miles Figure

I noticed that the route miles of WMATA are listed at 128mi when this is actually the number of track miles. As defined here (Template:Infobox public transit) system length is to be the total route miles and defined here (Network length (transport)) the route miles is the total length of all routes combined. Doing some quick math, that ends up being 167.81 miles long. I'm going to go ahead and update the figure on the page and leave a note giving a little more detail about terminology, feel free to revert if I messed up somewhere. Piemadd (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: WMATA's official route miles figure is 130 miles [8]https://www.wmata.com/about/records/upload/FY2023-Approved-Budget-Final.pdf, which directly contradicts the Wikipedia route miles definition. Working on getting route mile sources per line, which is proving difficult as it seems that WMATA hasn't recently published those figures, from what I can tell. Piemadd (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Lucas Wall's Speedrun Record Broken

Lucas Wall's speedrun record was broken, video of the 8h36m record breaking attempt is at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SziHV_jUodg . The attempt seems legit, and he did a good job documenting it on video. Jlogansmith (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The new speedrun record was recorded on Youtube and was subsequently reported by WUSA9 (the DC-area CBS station) is here: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/new-metro-station-wmata-speed-run-record/65-30cefd4c-bccf-4763-af79-9d8c7b06aa34.(talk) 19:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is the map not the official metro map?

Shouldn’t the picture in the article that is labeled system map be the official metro map that is used by WMATA? 2600:4040:B67A:CD00:E875:AC66:9150:A63C (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That might be ideal, but the official map is copyrighted, non-free content. Under the non-free content guideline, non-free content can only be used on Wikipedia when a stringent set of criteria are met. Specifically, use of the official map would not meet criterion 1 ("No free equivalent"), since a free equivalent for the map has been created. We use that free equivalent instead, since it serves the same purpose while also allowing free reuse under a Creative Commons license. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
It is illegal to use official transit maps in transit articles on Wikipedia becuz they are copyrighted. For example: In the articles Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority and Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)#Network and infrastructure, you will see fan-made system maps and not the official ones. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Metro/Archive_3&oldid=1256812122"