Talk:San Joaquins

Suggest Remove Rolling Stock Section
Since the Amtrak California page has added the rolling stocks information, I think it is appropriate to remove the same section from San Joaquins page. These rolling stocks are, after all, not San Joaquins exclusives. --Will74205 05:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've expanded this section to discuss earlier equipment usage. Mackensen (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Stockton
There are actually two Stockton stations used for the San Joaquins - trains from Sacramento use the Stockton (ACE station) (Cabral Station), and trains from Oakland go to the Stockton (Amtrak station). The route box shows both routes going through the Stockton Amtrak station. Does it make sense to edit this to show the two different stations, and if so, is there someone more knowledgeable than me who could make the edit?--NapoliRoma (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just rechecked the timetable that's linked as the reference to verify this. I've updated the routebox appropriately. Slambo (Speak)  17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Route map
The route map says "to Los Angeles" at the end, after the Oakland station. I think this belongs at the beginning, before Bakersfield.--agr (talk)
 * I think the author had the Coast Starlight in mind, but that's not even a bookable connection. It definitely shouldn't be before Bakersfield though, since it doesn't run there in scheduled service. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but is there some way to indicate the bus connections to LA? They are a significant part of the service.--agr (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on San Joaquin (train). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131105095505/http://www.acerail.com/About/Regional-Governance-for-San-Joaquin-Rail-Service/Previous-SJJPA-Board-Meetings/Complete-SJJPA-May-2013-Packet.pdf to http://www.acerail.com/About/Regional-Governance-for-San-Joaquin-Rail-Service/Previous-SJJPA-Board-Meetings/Complete-SJJPA-May-2013-Packet.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131024214436/http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Alert_C&pagename=am/AM_Alert_C/Alerts_Popup&cid=1251624886764 to http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Alert_C&pagename=am/AM_Alert_C/Alerts_Popup&cid=1251624886764

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Logo
I don't believe that it's worth including a logo in this article, for several reasons. One, that logo does not appear to be in use any longer - I cannot find it in use anywhere but Wikipedia. Two, it doesn't add any encyclopediac value to the article. Per WP:LOGOS: The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. For trains, however, the primary identifier/portrait is a photograph of the train itself; the logo is of secondary importance and does not need to be at the very top of the infobox. The fact that Amtrak schedules, route website, and twitter all use different logos underscores the non-importance of the logo. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point that the primary identifier is a photograph of the train itself. I do feel like mentioning that if you feel this way about this article, this should be a greater discussion about logos on all of the Amtrak train pages (with the possible exception of the Acela). I also feel like pointing out that the San Joaquin logo (albeit various versions with/without the slogan) have been appearing in more places including the timetable, cafe car menu, twitter and station signage. In short, I don't feel strongly that we need to keep it, but I do feel strongly that there needs to be a consistent approach across all of the Amtrak train pages. --RickyCourtney (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus for this requested move. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 17:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

San Joaquin (train) → San Joaquins – On all official materials, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority and Amtrak refer to the name of this train service as the "San Joaquins" train. Examples can be seen on the offical San Joaquins website, timetable, cafe car menu, twitter handle, and new station signage. The other potential benefit of this page move is that the no "(train)" disambiguation will be needed at the end of the page name. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. What's relevant is not the WP:OFFICIAL name but the WP:COMMONNAME as determined by usage in reliable secondary sources, like newspapers. What do they use? --В²C ☎ 20:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's split, Fresno's ABC station and Sacramento's ABC station both use "San Joaquins" while the Fresno Bee uses "San Joaquin" in the first sentence and "San Joaquins" in the last sentance. I think there is some name confusion around the plurality (calling one train a San Joaquin, but the service the San Joaquins). -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I think the combination of the official usage and reliable source usage noted above is enough to establish the proposed name is the most common name. --В²C ☎ 21:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The official name appears to have changed when the second train was added in 1980; compare the October 1979 and February 1980 timetables. I think this is the only Amtrak route whose name takes the plural form and has a natural singular form (we don't run into this with the Cascades, for example). Both names are valid, but as Ricky says the plural form is official and unambiguous. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm uncomfortable with this RM proposal, as per the COMMONAME question above – i.e. I don't think the plural name is really the publicly-used common name for this line. I'm think I'm leaning oppose based on that, and WP:TITLECHANGES... --IJBall (contribs • talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: It appears that the official name uses the plural. Many links are created by Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak and thus will be updated with a single edit to that data module. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2019 (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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Amtrak San Joaquin.svg

Brevity in infoboxes
Since @‎Endrias Kassa reverted my edits, I'd like to start the discussion over if it's okay to simply say that the San Joaquins travel to "Oakland" in the infobox instead of "Oakland–Jack London Square." Yes, there are two stations in Oakland, but I don't think there's a real danger of our readers confusing the two, especially since they can simply click or hover over the link for clarification. Furthermore, in infoboxes, brevity is important. They are meant to be quick, consise summaries, not complete and total explinations (that's what the aricle is for). Thoughts? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, but you'd have to change it for all the stations that lead to Oakland-Jack London square in the boxes. Endrias Kassa (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's what I had done before you reverted my changes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with just saying "Oakland" as the destination since this is clearly the main Oakland station. (The Emeryville station infobox can use the full name since it's actually the adjacent station there.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Done. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)