Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro/Archive 2

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, there is so much work to be done on coverage of Metro, that I would hope that we can avoid the distraction of Kumioko's well-meaning efforts to restart the WikiProject United States. Let's get back to work here on our articles. If people within this project want to try a collaboration, propose it on our Project page rather than getting wrapped up in the other. Racepacket (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

List of stations needs some attention
I made a post at Talk:List of Washington Metro stations about some concerns I have about the list article. This is a featured list and I do not think it would remain as such if it were to go through review (which I'd like to avoid if possible). Please see my post on that talk page for information. – Dream out loud (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A more general question is what should articles covering individual lines contain. Currently, they have a bullet list of stations. However, User:Arsenikk is insisting that such bullet lists be converted into tables. What do people think? 66.173.140.100 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. I haven't really done too much editing or reading of DC Metro articles, but I was actually pretty surprised to see that each line had a bulleted list for stations. Every other rapid transit line article I had seen before had tables, so I definitely think they should be converted and I don't think a consensus is necessary. – Dream out loud (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nominated List of Washington Metro stations for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Dream out loud (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Under WP:EMBED bullet lists are compatible with the MOS and are not required to be converted into tables. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone from this project prepared to help keep this list featured? There are several comments that could be addressed waiting at WP:FLRC. If not, it will be delisted within a week. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

New maps
As you may have noticed, I have updated the WMATA line maps to use BSicons instead of the old table-based method. Notably, it has made the infoboxes wider. What do you think? &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that they made the boxes wider, but I still think it looks acceptable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Track gauge categories
Per discussion at WT:TWP, new track gauge categories have been created. Tramway systems fall under these categories, which are sub-cats of Category:Broad gauge railways, Category:Standard gauge railways and Category:Narrow gauge railways. Population of the various gauge categories needs to be done by adding the relevant gauge category to articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

GA quality
At the end of last year, I undertook to bring the project's articles up to GA standards. The major articles are all now GA except for the Blue Line, which I have renominated and is pending review. I have learned a number of lessons from the effort: I hope that you will help shepard the Blue Line to GA, and that eventually we can have a WMATA "Good Topic." Best wishes on the project's future success. Racepacket (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the project had developed its own style, a number of reviewers are from Europe and wanted the articles to be reformatted.
 * Metro's history continues to be both controversial and interesting to readers. Some would argue that it was a miracle that the system was successfully built.
 * As was the case with the original funding of Metro, there are currently tensions below the surface between this project and the US roads people. When volunteer article reviewers are sought, they seem to be eagar to step forward with a keenly critical eye. While Wikipedia should be careful to avoid taking sides on the merits of different types of infrastructure, it is human nature that people who like roads gravitate there and people who like mass transit gravitate here.
 * The Washington Post continues to cover WMATA closely and remains one of the best secondary sources for current coverage.

Source for codes.
As far as I can tell, none of the codes (like Union Station being B03) are referenced. I think the only on-line reference that I've ever seen is http://www.wmata.com/business/procurement_and_contracting/solicitations/uploads/FM8202%20Cons%20IFB.pdf (starting on page 325). Should we add this as a reference inside the infobox?Naraht (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good find! Let's use that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"New" names for stations--premature?
It seems to me that renaming the articles for those stations that are to be renamed is somewhat premature. It was apparently done on the basis of Metro's press release from a few weeks ago. But that press release says that the name changes are for the June 2012 map; Metro's own website still uses the names that have been used all along. In short, I think that the announced changes have not taken effect yet. It seems to be largely, if not entirely, the work of one individual, who has gone through and renamed them not only in their individual articles, but also wherever they are referenced (I found it where he changed the names in an article about half written by me; it wasn't about Metro, but it listed several locations as being near this or that station).

There's been a brief discussion on this at Talk:King Street – Old Town (WMATA station). But I don't know how many people would actually see it there. 173.79.191.234 (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I really haven't seen an answer on this, except that the one person who made the change thinks it should be that way, and suggested that going by a source other than his would be original research. I really don't think the name changes have gone into effect yet. And I think titling the articles by station names that don't exist yet except in one press release that says they've been approved is premature and misleading. 173.79.191.234 (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza


 * I'm still hoping to get some discussion on this. This change seems to have been brought about by one person, who bases it on a somewhat ambiguous press release. That press release is the ONLY thing that refers to the stations by their new names. And it says that the name changes were approved for the June 2012 map. 173.79.191.234 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Found basis for NOT changing names yet
I found a basis right here on this page for not yet changing the names of stations based on the press release of last November. This project page says: Naming Conventions

Metro stations: Use Station Name (WMATA station), as written on the official Metro system map

The official map still shows the old names. So I still argue that changing the names throughout Wikipedia was premature. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add this to the Supported Projects list of WikiProject United States
I noticed recently that this project was marked inactive a few months ago. I would like to add it to the supported projects list of WikiProject United States but before I do I wanted to give folks a chance to comment. Kumioko (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this project is marked as inactive, its been 4 days without any comments and since WikiProject DC is already a supported project of WikiProject United States I am going to go ahead and add this project to the supported projects list of WikiProject United States. If anyone has a problem with me doing this please let me know. Kumioko (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Unneeded station name disambiguation
Right now, every open station article appears to have (WMATA Station) at the end of the name. While this is certainly needed for stations like Rockville and Vienna, I don't believe that it is true for stations like NoMa-Gallaudet or Grosvenor Strathmore. I'd appreciate opinions and whether or not this should be delayed until after things settle down from the more recent mass name change.Naraht (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should be consistent. They're unarguably needed for some stations, and I think it should be the same for all--so that there's an agreed, standard way to title all articles in the future (Silver Line?).  And frankly, I think all articles for stations in any subway or transit system should have something like that.  Look at it this way; since it comes at the end, after the name of the station, it won't interfere with a search--won't hurt, might help! Uporządnicki (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Railyards?
Would there be enough information/interest/?? to do articles on the 6(?) railyards in the system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 12:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for United States A-Class review process
There is a proposal at WikiProject United States to start an A-Class review process for United States related articles. Please stop by and join the discussion. Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion to remove the Automatically assessed logic from the WikiProject United States template
Greetings, there is a discussion regarding removal of the logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories from Template:WikiProject United States. Most of the categories (over 220 Wikipedia wide) were deleted in February 2013 because they were empty. These categories were previously populated by a bot that hasn't run since 2011 and the categories aren't used. Removal of this uneeded/unused logic will greatly reduce the size and complexity of the WikiProject United States template. Any comments or questions are encouraged here. Kumioko (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lest there is any confusion for people who don't speak the same language, the words "logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories" refer to the feature that was supposed to allow this WikiProject's template to "inherit" class and importance ratings from other WikiProjects. Kumioko says that there are no longer any bots performing the function that formerly copied those ratings. --Orlady (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)