User talk:Truflip99/archive1

Back to current talk page

Grade-separated crossings

FYI, there are four grade-separated crossings on the Blue Line west of Beaverton TC: Murray Blvd., Cornelius Pass Road, Brookwood Parkway, and Main Street (the bridge around 18th & Main). However, at Murray, it was the road (not the track) that was regraded (raised up onto a new viaduct), and that grade separation was built about 35-40 years ago, when the track there was in use only as a freight railroad line (which continued until the early '90s). So, it is definitely a grade separation, but not one that was built for MAX. The Brookwood Parkway grade separation was built as part of the MAX project, a trench being dug to lower the track, and a bridge built over it for an (eventual, later) extension of Brookwood Parkway through that area. Of the four, only the Main Street Bridge and Cornelius Pass Road have WP articles. SJ Morg (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@SJ Morg: Noted! I seem to forget those points as you're barely aware of the MAX's presence when traversing those areas. --Truflip99 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

MAX Light Rail articles

Thanks for your work on so many MAX Light Rail-related articles lately. I've been waiting for some editors to overhaul entries about the lines and stations for a while now, so I'll be following along. Don't hesitate to reach out to WikiProject Oregon if you need some help. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: My pleasure! Hopefully we can get some of these articles to GA and eventually FA! :) --Truflip99 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you're familiar or interested, but the WikiCup is a content-creating competition. Given your prolific work, you might have fun participating. Either way, keep up the great work, I'm definitely appreciating and following along. Looking forward to your future (hopefully) work on other MAX station and line articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I would certainly love to participate in something like that in the future. Right now might not be a good time, however, as I've been a little more busy offline. But I'll definitely be contributing still well within the next few years. Thanks for following along! --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Red Line

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article MAX Red Line you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to Pinoy edit a thon @ OSU

Who: All members of the public

What: Filipino American History Month-themed Edit a thon at Ohio State University.

When: Saturday 20 October 2018, 4:00PM EST / 1600 until 4:55PM PST / 1655

Where: Eighteenth Avenue Library, Ohio State University

Sponsor: WikiConference North America 2018
San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Truflip99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Red Line

The article MAX Red Line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:MAX Red Line for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on the article's promotion! I'm enjoying your work on MAX-related articles, and hope to see some MAX station articles improved as well. Keep up the great work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portland International Airport station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Portland International Airport station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portland International Airport station

The article Portland International Airport station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Portland International Airport station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portland International Airport station

The article Portland International Airport station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Portland International Airport station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editathon: The Visibility Project - Saturday, January 19

Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of MAX Red Line

Hello! Your submission of MAX Red Line at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SoWhy 12:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Oregon State University Black History Month Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Friday, February 8

To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

TriMet MAX Light Rail Rolling Stock

Hi Truflip99. First of all thank you for the work on many MAX Light Rail articles. But there is something which has bothered me for a while, and I thought I'd directly reach out to you. I hope this is ok for you! :) I prefer having the Rolling Stock of MAX Light Rail within the "MAX Light Rail" page, as it used to be, and not on a separate "TriMet Rolling Stock" page. First it is much clearer when it is on one page. Second, it is incorrect to only list light rail vehicles under the page of "Trimet Rolling Stock", as TriMet also has buses, LIFT vehicles and many other vehicles. Can this be revised, so the Rolling Stock will be in the main article again? Thank you very much and have a great day! 77.57.88.243 (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@77.57.88.243: Hi There! Please considering starting a discussion in the Talk Page of the MAX Light Rail article about this proposal. Since the original discussion held a consensus to move the page, you will need to earn support for a revert. Alternatively, please consider contributing to the TriMet rolling stock page with more information about TriMet's complete rolling stock. You may argue that there is a specific definition of rolling stock in the U.S. to include roadway vehicles, which I would support. In any case, I would be glad to assist in whatever you would prefer to do. My only goal here is to elevate transit-related articles to Good Articles and Featured Articles and to promote mass transit in Oregon. Good luck! --Truflip99 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it! I will do that. 77.57.88.243 (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Truflip99. Unfortunately nobody has responded to my proposal yet. I wrote it onto the MAX Light Rail page, but have not heard anything. What can I do about it? I hope you understand my points, why I would like to reverse the split. Thank you for the ongoing support! 77.57.88.243 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@77.57.88.243: You may bold edit. I will support it as long as you create an account and write a high quality draft. The version prior to the move was a mess, and it would be great if an editor like yourself upgraded that section to good article standards. I acknowledge how much this means to you and I really admire that. I would prefer to have content that I know people are interested in, rather than clean content that no one cares about, if that makes sense. I hope you decide to contribute more. We could use the help =) --Truflip99 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Lending hand at Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8

Hi, I appreciate your offer in improving further Philippine Rail Articles. Although I would ask a request from you to help out in making administrators understand that MRT-8 and PNR East-West Railway is one and the same and it thus was officially given the Line 8 designation as I have mentioned in Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8. I do hope you could participate in the discussion as some Chinese user whom was deeply hurt when I updated the zhwiki with the new info reverted all my edits there and retaliated here in the english wikipedia for unwarranted reasons. Thanks! Korean Rail Fan 16:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for MAX Red Line

On 25 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MAX Red Line, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Portland's MAX Red Line light rail, initially planned decades into the future, was built ahead of other projects because of an unsolicited proposal by Bechtel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MAX Red Line. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, MAX Red Line), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

PNCA Art+Feminism Wikipedia Editathon, Saturday, March 9

The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available. Please visit this link for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Oregon Jewish Museum, Thursday, March 7

The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.

Please visit this link and the meetup page for more information. Thanks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work on making major, high-quality expansions of articles related to the MAX Light Rail system. Those articles have long been in need of high-quality expansion, so it's great to see someone working on that. Thank you. SJ Morg (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

MAX article expansions

Expanding on the above barnstar message: I wanted to compliment you on the work you've been doing, over the past several months, making major expansions of the articles on the individual lines of the MAX Light Rail system. It's long been frustrating to me that the vast majority of transit-related articles on Wikipedia seem to be edited by people who don't know how to write and, more importantly, don't know how to find reliable sources and use them, and are unwilling (or unable) to take time to make high-quality, well-referenced expansions. So, it is very nice to see an editor making transit-article expansions who is an exception; SounderBruce is another such exception.

I've been on Wikipedia for 10 years now, and although I probably wouldn't have initiated any of those major expansions myself (because I have other Wikipedia editing interests that are a higher priority for me), I almost certainly would have been willing to help you to some degree if your expansions had taken place before 2018. Unfortunately, during the last year or two, the amount of free time I have for Wikipedia editing has greatly decreased, due to demands on my time from non-WP activities and other factors. For the same reason, a much higher-than-previously proportion of my WP edits nowadays are just gnomish edits, which I can do when I am tired or have only a few minutes of free time. So, I have not been able to help you out – and that includes taking time to scan and upload photos that might be useful, and which I had held off scanning and uploading in the past only because the relevant WP articles were not long or detailed enough to support the additional photos – and I don't anticipate any change in that for the foreseeable future.

I have made a few edits related to your recent MAX expansions, as you know, but I was beginning to worry a little that you might be inferring that I was taking your work for granted and only jumping in when I found something with which I disagreed. I simply have much less time for Wikipedia editing nowadays than I did between 2009 and 2017. Anyway, for several weeks now I have been intending to leave a note like this, to thank you for your work on making high-quality, well-referenced major expansions to MAX-related articles. I congratulate you for bring the MAX Red Line and Airport station articles up to Good Article class (and also getting the former listed at DYK!), and I know you are working towards bringing certain other MAX and Portland-area transit articles up to the same level. If a question or two comes up, from time to time, during your research or editing, you are free to ask me about it, but just don't ask me much (or about any complex topics), because I probably won't have time to reply to anything that cannot be answered quickly or easily. (And the next month or so will be even worse than usual.) I really wish I had more time for Wikipedia editing, but it looks like 2019 will be just as bad as 2018 was for me in that regard. Keep doing what you are doing. It's been nice to see. SJ Morg (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@SJ Morg: Thank you, SJ Morg! Your compliment genuinely means a lot and inspires me to keep on going. It has certainly been a great pleasure for me to edit these articles as a way to contribute to the community and promote our corner of the world. I may not be a civil engineer or city planner (yet), but I do have an obsession for trains and transit systems. It's funny that you mention @SounderBruce, as a lot of what fuels me to edit these articles is also my personal rivalry with Seattle. He has been killing it with the Seattle and Washington-related articles and it absolutely pisses me off! (Which is why C-Tran is in the back burner of my back burner.) Jokes aside, it's thanks to you guys and everyone who has offered their help that these articles are much better than they were a few months ago. I'm especially grateful for your guidance—which I did not infer in the way you described—and continued support of the details I've missed. I was born around the time the downtown Hillsboro extension got approved, in another country. So who better to know (the) MAX than the guy who was there in 1986? Cheers, sir! To many more to come. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! – SJ Morg (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Like +1, thanks so much for your work on these articles! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

MAX Yellow Line

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article MAX Yellow Line has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GA review.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you so much! Very much appreciated. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

NS Line (Portland Streetcar)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article NS Line (Portland Streetcar) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Blue Line length figures

Regarding this edit: A single TriMet source is hardly a case of TriMet "insisting". I've been following Portland transit for decades, as you know, and I have never, ever seen "15.3 miles" for the original Eastside MAX line (and very broad Google searches also find zero hits for that). But I already knew it was wrong (an error by Mr. Selinger), because I have many other sources for a length of "15.1 miles", several of which I have now added to the MAX Blue Line article. I even have multiple issues of a public newsletter that TriMet (or "Tri-Met" in those days) produced during construction of the Banfield Light Rail line in the early 1980s (called Light Rail's Movin'), which repeatedly gave the length as 15.1 miles – but I cannot use those as references because they are not available online. But several others are. The 1989 TRB report I have now cited includes articles by a TriMet planner (Gerhart), on page 317, and a TriMet rail vehicle engineer (Porter), on page 468, both repeatedly citing 15.1 miles; and that is just one source that I have added. (BTW, the page numbers I gave in the citation template are the as-marked, printed page numbers, not the PDF page numbers.)

Unfortunately, as the Westside MAX project got under way, TriMet began using rounded figures – length figures that did not include any tenths digit – nearly all the time, and when I looked for info. over the past few days I found it very difficult to find any figures that were not rounded to the mile. Planners and engineers are often more precise, even in public documents, than public relations people are, so I managed to find a few references that provided more precise figures. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the potential sources suitable for WP on this subject are newspaper and magazine articles (this was still mostly pre-Internet) that were presumably getting their info. primarily from TriMet's public relations staff, so they use length figures that lack any tenths digit. Partly due to that, the few publications that did give more-precise lengths frequently vary by 0.1 or 0.2 mile, and there are so few overall that it's not possible to say 'the vast majority say 17.5', or whatever. You can see how I decided to handle it in the Blue Line article, and I hope you'll find it acceptable, but I still don't know how to handle this inconsistency in the MAX Light Rail article. But I know that "33.3" miles is inaccurate by more than half a mile, resulting partly from adding unrounded figures to rounded figures, and I couldn't sit by and let info. here that had been relatively accurate for many years suddenly be made inaccurate. The "33.3" figure in the main MAX article definitely needs to go, but I'll wait for your reaction to my Blue Line article changes before I do anything there. Since we do have more-precise figures (with a tenths digit) for the other lines – maybe because the next line after the Westside had a length approx. halfway between 5 and 6 miles! – I feel it would be a pity if we had to round all of them. And writing "33.0" miles for the Blue Line, in the parent article, is simply inaccurate. TriMet never writes "33.0", because TriMet is rounding (from 32.6 or 32.7), to "33". So, I think we either have to round them all, or round none, and rounding none requires using mostly non-TriMet sources, because the accurate unrounded Blue Line length is 32.6 or 32.7 km, not 33. (By the way, in that aforementioned edit, you changed sourced info. without removing one of the two cited source, and I was surprised to see you make that mistake. My changes this morning have reinstated mention of the previous length figure there, allowing the citation in question to be retained.)

Another source I cannot cite for WP: Over the years, I have managed to acquire civil-engineer's-style track maps of every MAX line (including separate Banfield Project and Westside Project ones), which convey a lot of detailed info. Before starting on my recent quest (which I spent several hours on, over the past few days) to find published info. that gave precise length figures, I examined those track maps to see if they gave the same figures that I had believed were correct. They did. 15.1 miles for the Eastside line (but almost 15.2 miles with the "tail track" beyond the platform at the last stop, Cleveland Ave., which is not really part of the "route") and 17.6 miles for the Westside line. They give the downtown (SW 11th) to 185th segment as 11.4 miles (and the extension west as 6.2), but I found multiple sources giving "11.5 miles" for the former and only a single source giving "11.4", so in that instance I decided to use 11.5 in the Blue Line article. Having been reassured by the engineers' maps, I was then willing to spend several hours looking for published info. to cite for the Blue Line article, but I am frustrated at having had to do it, since I really have almost no time for WP currently. A lot of other things on my WP to-do list didn't get done, as a result. But please don't infer any criticism from that comment. SJ Morg (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@SJ Morg: Sorry I made you take the time to do that. I figured I should have just gone with the EIS that's already cited in the article, but at this point I'm just frustrated with the whole thing. I've even tried reaching out to TriMet's social media guy to no avail. It's as if they're embarrassed about length ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) and their ridership statistics. I'll stick by what you did in the Blue Line article and update the MAX article accordingly. --Truflip99 (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If I known how long it would take, I might not have tried, and maybe just substituted rounded-to-the-nearest-mile numbers. But I was already well into researching it before it became so evident that TriMet had used rounded figures for the Westside line almost without exception, for several years (and to this day). Wikipedia didn't exist in the days when the Westside Line (which was not "Blue" until it was three years old!) was being planned and built, so the lack of precision in info. put out for the general public wasn't really affecting me, but I'm glad TriMet returned to the practice of including a tenths digit in length figures for all of the post-1990s MAX lines. SJ Morg (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@SJ Morg: Is it alright with you if I omit some refs to avoid issues with WP:OVERKILL? I've been holding off for a minute, because I know you had done a lot of work for it (and it's also going to be a bit of work to convert them into short parenthetical sources so as to maintain the page's consistency). Waiting on what you think is best before I move forward. --Truflip99 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "convert them into short parenthetical sources so as to maintain the page's consistency". Are you referring to the MAX Blue Line article (the main subject of this talk-page section) or the MAX Light Rail article? SJ Morg (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@SJ Morg: Basically just convert all of the mixed formatting of {{rp}} or {{sfn}} to just one type per WP:IBID. --Truflip99 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand the reasoning behind WP:OVERKILL (although I don't have time to reread it fully this week), but in this instance I feel it is necessary to cite multiple sources in order to counter the effective inaccuracy of the less-precise info. given out by what normally would be considered the most reliable source: current web pages of TriMet (as opposed to info. given by TriMet contemporaneously with the Banfield and Westside projects, back in the 1980s and 1990s – which differed, as we have discussed). And I intentionally tried to provide a variety of supporting sources, including some that are not online but might be considered more reliable. (Sources that are easily accessible due to being online often receive more use on WP than contemporaneous sources, when the original sources often were more accurate.) I wouldn't object cutting back if an article cited five sources for one sentence, but for the material discussed in this talk page section I believe that the inclusion of at least three sources is appropriate (just not acceptable, but useful) and not overkill. Also, there are only a tiny number of places in the Blue Line article where more than two inline citations appear in a row (a total of three, it appears), and I don't feel that such a small number of instances negatively affects the readability of the article. SJ Morg (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Yellow Line

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article MAX Yellow Line you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kew Gardens 613 -- Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Blue Line

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article MAX Blue Line you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kew Gardens 613 -- Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Blue Line

The article MAX Blue Line you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:MAX Blue Line for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kew Gardens 613 -- Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Yellow Line

The article MAX Yellow Line you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:MAX Yellow Line for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kew Gardens 613 -- Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Yellow Line

The article MAX Yellow Line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:MAX Yellow Line for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kew Gardens 613 -- Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! I love all the MAX-related work you're doing lately. Thanks a million for making Wikipedia better! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of NS Line

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article NS Line you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kew Gardens 613 -- Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Overlook Park station

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Overlook Park station has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: As always, thank you very much for the splendid work! --Truflip99 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

PTC right-of-way

With reference to the MAX Blue Line article, I suspect you might not be aware of the fact that the 4.6-mile section referred to was from Cleveland Avenue to Ruby Junction and then south (passing what became the site of the Ruby Junction maintenance facility) to Linneman Junction, which was located just south of Highway 26/Powell Blvd. So, less than half of it became part of the 15.1-mile Banfield light rail line. Another of your sources for that sentence (http://web.archive.org/web/20181128211023/https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2014/04/16/walk_there_gresham_downtown.pdf) makes no mention of PTC, but rather its predecessor, the Mount Hood Railway (which became part of PRL&P in 1914), and says MAX uses its former right-of-way between (NE) 99th & Burnside and Cleveland Avenue station. That's correct, but the section between 99th Avenue and Ruby Junction was abandoned in 1927, so I don't believe that source really should be used to support text that only refers to the two-mile section that survived (under PTC) as a freight line until 1983. I probably have sources in my files (or may be able to find them, if not), but don't have time to look in the next few days. (If you have Richard Thompson's book, Portland's Interurban Railway, a map appears on p. 72. A photo caption on p. 138 of the 1980 Labbe book could provide a partial reference, but not nearly enough by itself. Same for this book's pp. 98 and 110.) For now, maybe you should remove the specific length (4.6 miles), since most readers will infer that a 4.6-mile section of PTC right-of-way became part of the MAX line, and that's inaccurate. However, in addition to the two-mile section that became part of the first MAX line, TriMet used some of the north–south section for access to its maintenance complex. And TriMet also used the section between there and Linneman Junction for deliveries of LRVs, which came on flatcars over that section (although I cannot recall for sure right now, I think TriMet purchased that section either as a possible testing or training track [an idea that never came to fruition] or to ensure that it would not be abandoned and dismantled before the agency's 26 LRVs were delivered, which would have forced them to come by truck all the way from Vermont, increasing the shipping time and costs signficantly. Or both). SJ Morg (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I also suspected that the sentence/phrase saying PTC transferred the r/w to TriMet in August 1983 was incorrect, that it was not until later. I was right (although I really should be working on a non-WP project right now, but I couldn't resist making a quick check of NewsBank!). See this Dec. 17, 1983, Oregonian article, p. D9, "Tri-Met acquires rail right-of-way" (when you are logged-in to your library account). As I mentioned above, the plan to electrify the section south of the Ruby Junction complex and use it for testing, mentioned in this 1983 article, did not come to fruition. SJ Morg (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@SJ Morg: Thanks for pointing that out. I'll have to dive deeper into this one. Will look at the sources you mentioned. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@SJ Morg: I've updated the section and added new sources, hopefully it's all correct now. Let me know otherwise. I'm still trying to figure out how to throw Mount Hood Rwy & Power in there, although I'm not sure if I want to. Do you think it's necessary? --Truflip99 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There were still a few problems after your recent editing, but I went ahead and made the changes myself, after doing a little additional research on NewsBank. The problems included: (1) you said TriMet used the right-of-way it acquired to test its new light rail cars, even though the article only mentioned that as a plan, the first LRV was not even delivered until 1984 (so, that 1983 source couldn't have supported a statement that TriMet "used it to test its new light rail cars"), and I had told you that, in the end, that plan never came to fruition; (2) you said production of the LRVs began in 1983, even though neither cited source said that, and I knew that was incorrect because it typically takes almost two years (yes, 2 years!) to build one LRV (very specialized, very labor-intensive), especially at the beginning of an order and in the era before any North American manufacturer had a facility with anything approaching the production capacity of Siemens' [greatly expanded over the years] facility in Sacramento; and (3) the PTC abandonment was not actually approved by the ICC until December 1983 (as that 12/17/83 article states). You also used the 7/29/83 to article to support details that were not in that article, but they were in the 12/17/83 article, so I substituted that source - which is probably something you had intended to do.

After spending time on this (about 2 hours), I am eager to move onto another Wikipedia (really Wikimedia Commons) project I had planned to do this evening, so I don't want to spend time thinking about the Mount Hood Railway & Power question, but the short answer is: No, I don't believe it's necessary at all to mention that at this point. At some point, I'd like to add that the MAX section along Burnside Street was used by that company (and its successor, PRL&P) until 1927, but that can wait until I have time to locate refs. Also, trying to add it to the section currently is too difficult, since I'm really talking about a purely 'corridor history' type of addition, nothing to do with PTC or TriMet's acquisition of the PTC right-of-way. But that's a relatively minor bit of history that really is not needed to make this article GA-quality. SJ Morg (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of NS Line

The article NS Line you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:NS Line for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kew Gardens 613 -- Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Blue Line

The article MAX Blue Line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:MAX Blue Line for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kew Gardens 613 -- Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

NS Line GA nomination

As you have probably already noticed, I have replied to some of the questions raised in the GA review of the NS Line. Although I may do a little more of that, I'd like to note that I am resisting, because a lot of the answers to the reviewer's questions can be found in information already given (mostly by me), with sources, in the Portland Streetcar and Portland Vintage Trolley articles, so I am hoping you can use the latter to address many of the reviewer's questions (but I know it won't work for all). I can guess that you chose NS Line to bring to GA first, before the Portland Streetcar article, because that parent article needs a lot more editing work, but many of the issues raised by the GA reviewer for NS Line apply also to the parent article – and really should be 'fixed' there first, before fixing in this article, if not already addressed in the parent article (which some have been).

BTW, I have already known for a few years that the Portland Streetcar article needs some paring-down, especially copying or moving of a lot of its Eastside Line content to the Loop Service article, but doing that while leaving a sufficient overview in the parent article (and not breaking the extensive and carefully placed inline sourcing) would take a lot of time, so I have not been willing to spend the time to do that, so far. But I wanted to acknowledge that it's issue I am aware of. The extensive detail on U.S.-built streetcars also was appropriate when added to that article, but now (a few years later) it needs to be trimmed by maybe half or a bit more – but not by too much more than that, IMO, as it will always remain a significant part of the PS system's history (and it received national media coverage). However, I have too much else on my WP to-do list to want to tackle that in the near future. SJ Morg (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@SJ Morg: Thanks, man! I do acknowledge the need to maintain an article's scope, and have been trying my best to maintain that balance (so far it has been the most difficult with the MAX Green, Orange, and Yellow Lines because they share the same South–North Line history and you can only talk about the ballot measures so many times. I'm taking the same approach for the streetcar articles.). I thought it would be easier to learn about the systems in chronological order, which is why I have been editing individual lines in the order they opened instead of jumping straight into the main parent articles. I really appreciate you catching my errors in the process. I will try to attack the Portland Streetcar article soon, as the content seems to have gotten out of hand, especially the Proposed extensions section. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Good to hear, but since you have already done the major expansion and cleanup of NS Line, and the GA review is underway, I guess my primary suggestion is this: When you are trying to address issues raised in that review, if you think you don't already have info to resolve it, check the parent article (Portland Streetcar), because there's a chance that the info you need is already there (with sources, since it was likely added by me). For example, the info on why the project was renamed from Central City Trolley to Central City Streetcar, and an answer to the reviewer's question of whether the VT trips were extras or in place of regular service, were both already given in the PS article, with sources. I realize you might have already noticed that, and simply haven't had time to deal with it yet. I already fixed that one VT detail in the NS article myself, but am leaving most of it to you. Oh, by the way, I agree that the section on Proposed extensions in the PS article is much too long (I did not add any of that myself). It should probably be cut to just a couple of paragraphs, maybe with no subsections, with most of the proposals deleted entirely for now. However, the extension to Montgomery Park is much farther along than the others, and has even received $1M in FTA funds for continued planning, so it would be appropriate to give it more space than other proposed extensions. And I'd trim the Lake Oswego section greatly, now that it's been mothballed for seven years. Anyway, please don't infer any urgency from me on that. BTW, no need to ping me when you reply to a post of mine on your talk page; I keep talk pages on my watchlist for awhile after leaving a message, and yours is one I've been keeping there indefinitely. SJ Morg (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems I've encountered an issue with segment lengths again as well as dollar amounts. Both Portland Streetcar and Selinger seem to contradict some of your figures as follows:

• ext to RiverPlace
  • $16 mil
  • $18.1 mil (yours)
• ext to Portland Aerial Tram
  • 0.6 mi
  • 0.42 mi (yours)
• ext to Lowell
  • 0.4 mi (Portland Streetcar pdf)
  • 0.5 mi (Selinger)
  • 0.46 mi (yours) --Truflip99 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

RiverPlace extension cost: Well, what you call "my" source (for $18.1M in the PS article was shown there to be a Portland Tribune article dating from 2004 (when construction was just beginning), whereas you currently have cited two sources (in the NS article), one of which is an Oregonian article from the extension's opening in 2005, so it seems clear to me that figures published after the project was completed are preferable to ones published a year earlier, which means $16 million should be used, at least for now. As to the discrepancy, the $18.1M figure was reported to have counted the cost of two streetcars, as this edit shows; maybe the $16M counted only one of the two (I can think of a few possible reasons that might have changed, but have not researched it, and if I knew it at the time, I don't recall now). I don't know, but I have several other WP editing priorities currently and would rather not spend time on this. I'm willing to help where info you'd like to include is missing sources, but for discrepancies between reliable sources that you have access to (such as these), I am hoping you can sort it out without my assistance.

Regarding the lengths, do you really expect that mainstream publications (newspapers) and TriMet would use such precise figures in their information for the public? In other words, I feel that my figures are almost certainly more accurate, because they were probably from transit publications (the readers of which like greater precision), but – as happened recently with the MAX Blue Line article – a GA nom may force you to use less-precise figures. I see that the 0.42 and 0.46 figures for the extension to Gibbs Street (aka to the Portland Aerial Tram, but that was not yet operating when that extension opened) and from there to Lowell Street was added by me without citing sources, but that was during my very first month as a Wikipedia editor, more than a decade ago, and I had not yet adopted the practice of adding sources for nearly all of my edits. I am surprised I never went back and added sources for later. I cannot immediately determine where I obtained that, and there's a chance it was OR (if so, only because I was a brand-new editor at the time), so for now at least, you should use your sourced figures, even though they are almost certainly rounded, not precise – which regrettably is even more of a negative for coverage of streetcar lines (which frequently expand in short sections, when they do expand) than for light rail lines. – SJ Morg (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This source (a transit magazine, so more likely to user greater precision than general media does) said that the length of the extension from Gibbs Street to Lowell Street was "approximately 750m each way [0.46-0.47 mi.]. Its opening will make the overall line 6.2 km long". That is closer to the "6.3 km" figure that was in this article and the parent article before the second line opened than the "6.6 km" now in the article, and the latter almost certainly is based on inclusion of rounded figures for some of the extensions. SJ Morg (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

References

You da man. Btw, I didn't mean to convey anything negative by the "your" vs "their" references -- it was just easier for me to explain it that way. Thank you for the swift response to these! I wanted to make sure we were in agreement with the length figures this time as I didn't want to provide any wrong information as I did with the Blue Line article. Cheers! --Truflip99 (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

No offense taken. It's just that you and I are not the only people you are reading (or, at least, will read, over time) this talk page discussion. SJ Morg (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In case you'd like to add that the RiverPlace to Gibbs Street section was also ballasted track (as opposed to in-street track), now that there's a photo to show it, the already-cited January 2012 Tramways & Urban Transit article also covers that. Here's an excerpt: "The former tramway alignment, used for the last time on 9 October, was built in 2005 and opened in 2006 as simple ballasted track in former railway right-of-way adjacent to Moody Ave, the only track of that type on the line. It was always planned to be temporary, and therefore to reduce costs included a 900m section of bidirectional single track. ...". By the way, in case you didn't know, "built in 2005" is correct. That extension was completed (except for station fittings and signage) and was fully operable – test trips under power took place in August 2005 – in mid-2005, but its opening for service was postponed by more than a year because the South Waterfront District was still just a construction zone in 2005, with no residents and with the area's first high-rise building (the OHSU Center for Health & Healing) still months away from being completed. (I took photos of that, but don't want to upload to Commons.) If I recall correctly, it was always planned to open in 2006, but was built in 2005 in order to take advantage of cost savings from contracting for the construction on the heels of the RiverPlace extension's completion, rather than waiting until later (or something like that). – SJ Morg (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Added! I just found another source that states the Moody and Gibbs extension was "six-tenths of a mile", which brings the total to 4.06 mi (closer to the 4.1 mi figure). --Truflip99 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the problems with short extensions such as this is not knowing whether the person (reporter, media relations person, whatever) was measuring from station to station or from the end of the track. The RiverPlace "terminus" was on River Parkway, whereas the track continued around the corner for another tenth of a mile, and streetcars laid over on Moody Avenue (March 2005 to Oct. 2006). Measuring to Gibbs from the latter point would be more accurate, in my view, but would make the measurement shorter than one that was measured starting at RiverPlace station, and some people (especially ones doing it years later) might have done that. SJ Morg (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Your GA nomination of NS Line

The article NS Line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:NS Line for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kew Gardens 613 -- Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! I was glad to help, but I give the majority of the credit for getting this to GA to you (although I will take credit for having added a lot of well-sourced info. on this subject to the parent article back in 2009–10 and later!). Nice work. SJ Morg (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This was absolutely a team effort; I had a lot of fun doing it thanks to you! --Truflip99 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Great work, both! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Beaverton TC

I think your nomination of Beaverton Transit Center as GA was premature. Although I am very happy that you have, in recent months, tripled the size of this article – which I have long felt was far too short for what is likely the busiest MAX station and transit center in the entire TriMet system – there are still some pretty major gaps. Although I have changed its WikiProjects' assessments from Start-class to C-class, personally I wouldn't yet even rate the article as B-class. It jumps all the way from the TC's opening in 1988 to the opening of the MAX station 12 years later with a single sentence! It also makes no mention of the concession stand (or whatever it would be called) that has occupied part of the main building for 30+ years. (That only deserves a sentence or two, so is not a "major" omission, but just a significant one that I noticed.) I have not taken time to look for other specific omissions, for the same reason that I am afraid I don't have time to help you with this (too much else on my 'plate', and other priorities; I've been working a lot lately on researching and drafting [offline] a couple of new articles – one quite long, but not Oregon-related), but I'll try to upload a photo or two that may be useful now that the article has been greatly expanded. Again, thanks for doing a well-sourced expansion. I just feel that it's still well short of GA. Sorry. SJ Morg (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In my scan of The Oregonian for that period, I may have overlooked certain substantial events that took place, but I do recall noting a lack of detailed coverage for the Beaverton TC during the planning and construction stages of the Westside MAX. But I'll have to do a second read through. As for the concession stand, my understanding is that TriMet refers to it as the "Coffee Shop", which I do mention in the article. I did have a hard time finding information on the operator resting facility, which I know is there, occupying the other half of the building. While I'm aware that some parts of the article need expansion, I only made the nomination now because of the current backlog of pending reviews. I typically continue making more detailed edits over the span of several weeks to even months. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your "coffee shop" reference when I looked for something on that. That may be what TriMet calls it, but I don't think it's an accurate description (or coffeehouse, the article you chose to wikilink to), and to me concession stand seems closer, although WP's article on that topic implies that the term is only for entertainment venues (which is inaccurate, in my view). Anyway, I hope you can find more on this transit center when you have time to look. Hard to believe "The O" would have nothing at all that was usable for WP from the TC's first ten years of operation. By the way, if you have a "backlog of pending reviews", wouldn't that be a reason to hold off nominating this article, rather than a reason to proceed? SJ Morg (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Certainly! I'm referring to this backlog: Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Transport --Truflip99 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand now. You're figuring that you may have to wait months before a review starts – I noticed that your GAN of Tualatin station was made on February 1 and a review still has not started, and MAX Blue Line it was more than six months – so you wanted to get this one "in the queue", and were planning to do more edits meanwhile (as you did on Tualatin station). Not sure whether I support that rationale, but at least I think I understand it, and it's not unreasonable. SJ Morg (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Images for DYK

I hope you won't mind, but I have added an image to the DYK nomination for NS Line, for possible inclusion. My position (which I picked up years ago from other editors active at DYK) is that, as long as the subject is something that can be easily illustrated, it's always better to at least offer an image in DYK nominations than not at all. If whoever "promotes" the completed DYK review to a Prep area chooses not to include the image (i.e., chooses not to give that hook the top spot in a set of hooks for the Main Page's DYK section), so be it, but there's no risk in at least pitching a photo for possible inclusion. If you have no objection, I may do the same for the MAX Blue Line nomination (I am thinking maybe this or this or maybe I'll upload a new photo; your opinion would be welcome). SJ Morg (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Not at all! Please do and thank you! --Truflip99 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Red/Blue Line stop consolidation

You might already know about the stop consolidation plan, but I thought I made sense to let you know. You should get the direct TriMet source and add it to the articles. Thanks again for all your work!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! Looks like the vote is finally due next month, which may be the best time to make the updates. --Truflip99 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: This might also pique your interests. Just came in an hour ago. --Truflip99 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I had heard of discussions of this, but I did not know that they were moving forward. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of MAX Blue Line

Hello! Your submission of MAX Blue Line at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for MAX Blue Line

On 11 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MAX Blue Line, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Portland's MAX Blue Line (train pictured) was built as a result of freeway revolts in the 1970s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MAX Blue Line. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, MAX Blue Line), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi mate.

I would like to ask for your help against the active campaign for the deletion of all Metro Manila Subway station articles.

Thanks Jpg0813 (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for NS Line

On 18 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NS Line, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Portland's NS Line opened in 2001 as the first newly built streetcar line in the United States in 50 years to use modern vehicles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NS Line. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, NS Line), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

191st Street station

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 191st Street station has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GA nomination.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you again for all of your hard work! --Truflip99 (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

MAX's shared lanes

I noticed you've been working a lot on the MAX Light Rail article, undoubtedly towards your goal of making it a GA eventually. I wanted to mention one thing while I'm thinking about it, so I won't forget: Eventually, if this is to be a GA, there should be a mention of that fact that MAX shared lanes with other traffic across the Steel Bridge until 2008 – a source for this is already present in the bridge's article – and that the sharing of lanes along the transit mall started in 2009. Right now, the section on "Alignments" includes only a description of the current situation and no history, and at some point the latter needs to be added. (I'm too busy to do it myself, but am still available, intermittently, to assist your GA expansions when questions arise.) Prior to the opening of the mall tracks, the Steel Bridge had also been the only place on the entire MAX system where MAX trains shared lanes with other traffic, an important distinction that lasted for 22 years and into the era of the third (or fourth, if one counts Westside as the second) MAX line. I can easily find sources for that from the 1980s and 1990s, but not so sure I could easily find one from the 2000s. SJ Morg (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! So far I've only just moved that already existing information to that new Alignment section and have not added to it, but admittedly, having been only in high school at the time, I was not aware of that. Will add it accordingly. --Truflip99 (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Orenco station (TriMet)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Orenco station (TriMet) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Orenco station (TriMet)

The article Orenco station (TriMet) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Orenco station (TriMet) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Orenco station (TriMet)

The article Orenco station (TriMet) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Orenco station (TriMet) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

GA nom of Tualatin station - fail and message

Hi, because of your other good articles on the same topic, I thought I'd leave a personal message to tell you that the nom for Tualatin station has failed, which I know sucks, especially because it's been months. Review is here. Normally I would put it on hold for responses to the issues I've found, but my honest opinion after reading the article is that it needs a formal copyedit. Given the wait experienced at WP:GOCE (to the point I forget I'd asked for one when it finally happened!) means that the review would be on hold for much longer than the normal 1-week period, and even the two or three weeks that are allowed with discretion when it's clear work is being done to improve it. I will be more than happy to review it again, I think it can definitely be improved and expanded and it will be great to see what it looks like then! Note on the term "expansion" - I do not mean it fails because it is short (one of my GA's is short, and another one that I passed even shorter!), I mean that some of the statements would be clearer, more informative, better formatted, if they were expanded out and given a bit more space for explanation and contextualizing with the rest of the surrounding information for clarity, coverage depth, and good style. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif:: Idk if a bunch of CEs warrants an immediate fail, as those could easily be addressed, even by the nominator. And some of the grammatical issues you raised could be argued against. You state that this article only needs a CE, yet you don't seem satisfied with the coverage? Coverage of what, exactly? You provided no detail regarding the "detail that could definitely be expanded on". I'm just overall confused with your assessment. --Truflip99 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel it's pretty well explained where I've said sentences could be expanded out into multiple sentences, thus inferring that the info in them should get more detail. I also specify a ce from the GOCE, which has a backlog, which takes time. It's also explained in the review, in a specific note I added on why it failed coverage, that where style-wise the needs a big ce was half because sentences read poorly due to needing expanding out, this suggests that the coverage in all these areas could be improved. So I'm just overall confused at your confusion, unless you only read this comment and not the review. If you don't want me to re-review the page after you get that ce, I won't be offended, but I stand by the assessment. Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

MAX Green Line

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article MAX Green Line has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You're most welcome for the copy edit. Thanks for the Barnstar! Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Overlook Park station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Overlook Park station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Overlook Park station

The article Overlook Park station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Overlook Park station for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Overlook Park station

The article Overlook Park station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Overlook Park station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Barbur Boulevard bus lane

I just happened to find information on a Tri-Met bus lane on Barbur Boulevard here and thought you might find it of interest. I hope you are doing well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the resource, Kew Gardens 613! Definitely worth including for the SW Corridor project. I hope you're also doing well! Been a bit busy on my end. Hoping things clear up soon so I can go back to editing. Cheers! --Truflip99 (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. School has been going well for me. Stay well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Tualatin station

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the articleTualatin station has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Frankly I disagree with the GA reviewer over the heading "Station details". I don't see anything wrong with the wording and couldn't think of anything that is more appropriate. "Specifications" and "information" don't work in my opinion. The heading has also been used in other articles, including GA articles, so it is consistent.

Best of luck moving forward with the article.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Yulo article

I did not revert your sentences, I copy edited them. Your grammar is redundant. "Carlos Yulo is a Filipino gymnast who has won gold and bronze.... In 2018, he won bronze in Doha". I simply made it more concise, which is Wikipedia's goal. Your revert was uncalled for. --Truflip99 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Truflip99. The complete content is "Carlos Edriel Yulo (born February 16, 2000) is a Filipino artistic gymnast who has won bronze and gold at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships.

At the 2018 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in Doha, Yulo advanced to the all-around and floor exercise finals. He won bronze in the floor exercise finals, becoming the first Filipino and the first male Southeast Asian gymnast to win a medal at the championships. At the 2019 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in Stuttgart, Yulo won gold in the floor exercise finals. An historic win, it made him the first Filipino and first Southeast Asian to claim gold at a world gymnastics championship."

Would you please kindly point where the instance of redundancy was committed? Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Migsmigss That second paragraph are my edits... --Truflip99 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Already saw your latest edit. Thanks, and this is resolved, Truflip99.

Migsmigss (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Beaverton Transit Center

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Beaverton Transit Center has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I notice you removed duplicate Wikilinks around the citations in the article. While it is true that an item should generally be linked only once the the body of the article per the MOS there is no consensus on links for citations. With a short article like this it's probably unnecessary to link each instance. In longer articles I've found that sources are almost always all linked for the convenience of the reader. For instance if you were looking at footnote #200 and wondered about The Oregonian you would not have to look for a link—it would be right there. As I say though, there is no consensus. Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist: Thanks for letting me know! I actually have never looked up the MOS for this, I've just been basing it off the experience from my first GA review, where the reviewer made me remove them. I agree that it would be more convenient to have them all link. It seems however that the consensus for transit articles (based on my own observation) is to have link the first instance only. I'm good either way. :) Thank you again for the quality work you've put in. --Truflip99 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Truflip99 You're very welcome. I know the reviewer usually has the final say! I should add I asked at the WP Help desk a while ago and got an answer that they could find no mention of what protocol to use for this anywhere in the MOS so ... At least your transportation articles are relatively short so it's no big deal. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Your GA nomination of Tualatin station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tualatin station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tualatin station

The article Tualatin station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tualatin station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Mabuhay! Philippine Rail Network Overhaul

It's great to see other Wikipedians interested in the Philippine Rail system. I am currently focusing on collecting information for the different stations and adding more sources.

If I can help in any way just let me know :) Sabaybayin (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sabaybayin! Thanks for reaching out. Sorry it took me a while to respond I've been pretty busy irl. I would love to be able to see some articles from the 80s/90s regarding LRT 1. It'd be nice if you could find those. Otherwise, expansion of the Metro Manila rail articles is on my radar for 2020! Let me know if you need anything from me as well. Looking forward to working with you. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.

18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To subscribe or unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name from this list.

MAX Blue Line

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article MAX Blue Line has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist As always, you're the best. Happy Holidays!! 🎁 --Truflip99 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Truflip99: Thanks so much! Happy Holidays to you too. Cheers! Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

MAX Light Rail

@Baffle gab1978: Thank you! Your work is very much appreciated. The article looks fantastic. Cheers! --Truflip99 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Light Rail

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article MAX Light Rail you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1.02 editor -- 1.02 editor (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beaverton Transit Center

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beaverton Transit Center you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beaverton Transit Center

The article Beaverton Transit Center you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beaverton Transit Center for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Light Rail

The article MAX Light Rail you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:MAX Light Rail for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1.02 editor -- 1.02 editor (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MAX Light Rail

The article MAX Light Rail you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:MAX Light Rail for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1.02 editor -- 1.02 editor (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of MAX Light Rail

Hello! Your submission of MAX Light Rail at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Mall/Southwest 4th Avenue and Mall/Southwest 5th Avenue stations

@Baffle gab1978: Another one for the books. Again, I really appreciate you taking on the work. Thank you so much! --Truflip99 (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)