Talk:University Link Extension

Image copyright problem with Image:Sound-Transit-logo.png
The image Image:Sound-Transit-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 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: no consensus to move. Number   5  7  11:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

University Link extension → University Link Extension – Reverting an earlier move that un-capitalized the "extension" part of the title. Sound Transit refers to the extension as the "University Link Extension" in some areas (e.g. the project page) and as the "University Link extension" in other places (e.g. fact sheets). Other sources, including the Federal Transit Administration, King County Metro, and the Seattle Department of Transportation prefer the former (capitalized "extension"). In addition, all by one of the other Link extension articles (Northgate, Lynnwood, Federal Way) use a capitalized "extension"; East Link omits the word "extension" entirely, as Sound Transit considers it a separate light rail line. --Relisted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)  Sounder  Bruce  21:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I oppose this move. Even if it's conceded that Sound Transit is referring to the extension with a capital letter (and even then, apparently only sometimes), this is likely a case where the OFFICIALNAME is not the same thing as the COMMONNAME or the appropriate Wikipedia Article title. I can't think of one other extension project for another light rail or rapid transit system like this that capitalizes the word "Extension" in the title at the Wikipedia article. And the fact that Sound Transit capitalizes it on one webpage strikes me as similar to the recent discussion about the capitalization of station names at station pylons not being enough "sourcing" to justify capitalizing the Wiki article (e.g. see this, and related discussions...). It sounds to me like what should happen, instead, is that these should be moved, thusly: Northgate Link Extension → Northgate Link extension, Lynnwood Link Extension → Lynnwood Link extension, etc. (It's also debatable that each of these needs their own separate articles, but I'll leave that issue aside...) In any case, I can't see the justification for capitalizing "Extension" in the Article title for just these Seattle extensions, but for no other systems... However, I'll accept the results of this RM discussion/vote, whatever it is. --IJBall (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As a compromise (not saying this is the best option, since I know SounderBruce moved the page away from that name), it could always be titled, since that is a name used without "Extension/extension" both the official documents and some news sources: , . Conifer (talk ) 01:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I could certainly live with that, though the other articles (e.g. Northgate, Lynnwood, Federal Way) would all have to be renamed thusly, as well... --IJBall (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also be willing to see that happen. Technically, though, Sound Transit considers all of these lines as extensions of the existing Central Link line (with the exception of East Link) in their Service Implementation Plans. I doubt that in the long term we'll need articles on each extension, since they'll be merged into "Central Link" article at one point  Sounder  Bruce  04:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So, should the Requested move proposal be changed, mid-stream, to just ? (I'd certainly support doing that, if that is "allowed"...) I'd also support amending the proposal to include moving the other three extension articles the same way. --IJBall (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a revised proposal below.  Sounder Bruce  23:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to flip flop, but I remembered to look at the Sound Transit Board's materials (resolutions and motions) and they consistently call the project "University Link Extension", and all the others are "[Terminus] Link Extension". (Motions archive and Resolutions archive, I recommend looking through materials from 2012 to 2014.) So, I'd like to support my first requested move and cancel my second.  Sounder Bruce  03:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Still opposed then, as per the reasons above (WP:OFFICIALNAMES). Again, I can't think of any other article like this on English Wikipedia which would capitalize "Extension" in the Article title like this, and I don't see why Seattle's systems (alone) should be any different. Also, the fact that the Fact Sheet doesn't refer to this extension this way is telling in my mind, and may indicate that the capitalization in the internal reports is simply a "stylistic choice" and nothing more. --IJBall (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * These aren't internal reports. They're board resolutions and motions that are about as "official" as you can get with Sound Transit. The lack of capitalization in the fact sheet and other media sources (e.g. local newspapers and TV stations, as linked above) is probably the actual "stylistic choice" here. Having the Seattle extensions named differently than other rapid transit systems is a non-issue, since project/line names aren't standardized by the agencies in the first place. There's no reason to standardize when we have official names.  Sounder Bruce  22:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is "official names" aren't always the best choices for Wikipedia article titles, under WP:AT. If other editors agree with you, I'm not going to object. But I don't think we should necessarily be bound by these extensions' "official names" if it leads to non-standard article titles. Just because Sound Transit calls it something doesn't mean we at Wikipedia have to follow their lead... --IJBall (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If Sound Transit's names aren't appropriate for Wikipedia, then we should be calling this article "University Line extension", along with "Central Line (Seattle)" (or "Central Line (Link Light Rail)") and "East Line (Link Light Rail)". Just accept that some agencies name their lines and projects differently from the "standard" (which isn't published and enforced like the MUTCD is for roads).  Sounder Bruce  20:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Sound Transit officially titles it as "University Link Extension" and therefore that should be the title of this article.  Dough   4872   02:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2015
– Per the discussion at Talk:University Link extension. It's fairly redundant to put "extension" in the article title and the projects are not commonly called extensions by the local news media.  Sounder Bruce  23:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * University Link extension → University Link
 * Northgate Link Extension → Northgate Link
 * Lynnwood Link Extension → Lynnwood Link
 * Federal Way Link Extension → Federal Way Link


 * Support, as per the discussion referenced above. --IJBall (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing: Per above, the correct name for these projects are what they currently are/were prior to April 20.  Sounder Bruce  03:16, 22 April 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.

Requested move 7 June 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: moved. Number   5  7  14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

University Link extension → University Link Extension – Per the last discussion that had no consensus. To summarize: Sound Transit and other government agencies use the capitalized "extension" in their official documents (board resolutions and motions, FTA funding grants, etc.), while the lowercase "extension" is inconsistently used in news media articles and occasionally in throwaway pamphlets and flyers by Sound Transit. In addition, the lowercase "extension" implies that this is an extension of the University Link line, which it is not (it is actually extending the Central Link line; there is no line named University Link).  Sounder Bruce  23:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Per the previous discussion.  Dough   4872   02:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing objection to move – for the record, I still think all four articles should be moved to lowercase "e" for "extension" (for all the reasons I outlined before). But having one of these articles at lowercase "extension", while the other three are at uppercase "Extension" article titles, is obviously nonsensical. Better all four articles at least have the same format (even if I still think it's the wrong format!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, as a project on the whole, this public works construction is referred to as the University Link Extension, as opposed to an extension of the University Link (which is where the capitalization comes into play). -  Floydian  τ ¢  22:32, 21 June 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.