Transit agency name usage[edit]

From an anonymous contributor: I'm not going to bother to start a revert war with Will74205, but I do hope that others will gradually reintroduce the corrections that I had made. In some cases it's a matter of correct English grammar and in other cases, of usage conventions demonstrated in a transit agency's public materials.

In a sentence beginning "The Amtrak Capitol Corridor's Oakland Coliseum Station...", the article is necessary. (Compare "Amtrak's Philadelphia - 30th Street Station...", where it is incorrect to use the article.) The names "Amtrak" and "Amtrak Capitol Corridor" have different values.

In a sentence beginning "The AirBART shuttle bus and AC Transit bus routes 50 and 805 all run between...", the initial article is necessary. Omitting a definite or indefinite article here is an obvious grammatical error.

With respect to BART (but not necessarily other transit agencies), this possessive construction is common: "BART's <noun>", but this one is never used: "Bay Area Rapid Transit's <noun>". The second construction should be "The Bay Area Rapid Transit District's <noun>". The names "BART" and "Bay Area Rapid Transit" have different values.

And so on...

New Stub Cleanup[edit]

If someone could clean up some of the grammar here I would highly appreciate it, I have to admit I have poor copyediting skills --JVittes 04:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, should we merge the articles? --Will74205 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was gone on vacation, go ahead have the articles all merged, by redirecting the other two to here, and I'll try to find places to direct link from, as in the BART, the 3 BART line articles, and Capitol Corridor, also Oakland International Airport, and airBART, if any others are found go ahead and direct link. --JVittes 22:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made an svg map of the general area to make a sample map here [1], the original SVG file is here [2]. Suggestions as to what to do would be appreciated; Will74205 if you wish to edit the SVG map to make a map please go ahead and do so, note that since it still has the layer from google maps as reference it cannot be copied to wikipedia, so I have not done so, but the a png file that does not show it can be. --JVittes 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The maps are very impressive!!!!! You should upload the maps yourself, either just to the English Wiki or the Commons. I don't want to take credit from you. What software you used to create/edit these maps? I am not that familiar with graphic editing so you might do a better job, but I would include the Amtrak parking lot and perhaps enlarge the Amtrak platform a little bit. --Will74205 04:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I do is make screenshots of the area I want from the map view or hybrid view of the google map version I made http://www.stanford.edu/~jvittes/bayareatransit4.html, once I have the screenshot I want I use Inkscape, I load in the screenshot, then start drawing on top of it. Inkscape is very awesome, available for free at http://www.inkscape.org/, I started using it because that's what the SVG files for the Caltrain and BART pages were made with. It is surprisingly easy to use, I started with wanting to make a map for the ACE commuter train service, I put that one here, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ACE_map_plain.svg, they are easily editable. Png file is now at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Oakland_Coliseum.png, SVG file at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Oakland_Coliseum_plain.svg. Try using Inkscape to edit the SVG files, I think you'll find it quite a useful tool. --JVittes 05:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail[edit]

I am attempting to clean up excessive detail, overly wordy sections, and incorrect information. This includes:

My proposed version can be seen here. My attempts thus far to implement these changes have been reverted by Titanosaurus, who originally added most of the detail that I find excessive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discussion at WikiProject Trains. TITANOSAURUS 20:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since dispute resolution failed, I am going to boldly implement changes that should be uncontroversial - either because they unquestionably improve the article, or because they implement sitewide policies like the manual of style and the need for reliable sources. Since these changes have been reverted in the past because I lumped them in with more controversial edits, I am doing to perform them in chunks and explain them more completely than the edit summary here. I am adding ((in use)) while I work; please wait to change anything till I am done working (no more than a couple hours).

Part 1: infobox and lede

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2: History

Part 3: Station layout

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part 4: Bus connections

Obviously, this is the most disputed section of the article. I have changed it to what I believe is information agreed on by everyone: an image of bus operations at the station, a list of what bus numbers serve the stop, where buses stop at the station, and that is serves as an important interchange. We can start from there and discuss what does and doesn't belong.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part 5: images and final cleanup

While I understand that not everyone is going to be happy with every single change I have made, hopefully these explanations make clear why I have made these changes, and where they can be improved upon and why I have removed some information and citations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

I am going to likewise make some changes of my own, and here is an explanation for each of the changes I am going to make:
  • line: Per Template:Infobox station, the line section is supposed to display the name of the passenger services stopping at the station, not the physical line that it is located on, so I am going to re-add the service information.
  • other: The airport logo is not only used on bus signs, it is also used on all Oakland Airport-bound bus stops along routes 73 and 805 as an official indication that both services go to the airport, I will link to a picture of a bus stop used by both bus services to prove this if necessary.
  • map_locator: The map should be included with the article as it allows readers to easily understand where exactly the station is in Oakland without having to unnecessarily leave the page.
  • Sources: I am not going to re-add my sources at this moment, but I may in the future, and I would like to add a couple of notes on your statement. OpenRailwayMap is peer-reviewed and used by rail and tech companies around the world. Your new acerail.com source that you just displayed is perfectly fine and something I won't dispute, but your original "government source" was pretty questionable as it was in fact composed by a outside subcontractor, and even said that it shouldn't be used a definitive representation of the physical layout of the line in the very beginning of it, but I will otherwise leave it alone as I at least find its track layout information to be accurate. My NextDoor sourcing focused on the well-researched mapping aspect of the site, not the "gossiping", and if you were to compare the neighborhood maps on that website to similar maps on Google Maps and City-Data, you would find them to be very similar, albeit more detailed than the latter two. TITANOSAURUS 02:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nope, maybe, and absolutely nope. I am about to revert two of your edits as disruptive - especially since you cannt be bothered to provide edit summaries as you are supposed to.
  • The description on ((infobox station)) is dated and no longer correct. @Secondarywaltz:, I believe you may be able to give more details about it. Correct current usage is the physical railway line.
  • The airport logo is still not the official name of the route; bus stop signs are not a reliable source. Give a reliable source for them being part of the official names, because they sure aren't shown with airport logos on the AC Transit website - and the rollsigns and stops only show the airport logo in the airport-bound direction.
  • The dropdown map in the coordinates does not require leaving the page - so what benefit does the awkward map_locator actually give? You need to stop repeating information in multiple places on the same page.
  • ORM is only peer-reviewed in the sense that Wikipedia is; it absolutely fails the basic qualifications as a reliable source. Evidence for it being peer reviewed? Don't confuse "used as a quick unofficial lookup" with "used as a definitive reference". It is rife with errors and incomplete data; go talk to WP:RSN to get explained to since you refuse to listen to me. And yet you doubt an official government report because it was produced by a contractor? I haven't the foggiest idea what purpose NextDoor possibly serves as a citation in the first place. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Until you can actually prove, and not speculate, that the infobox is supposed to display the physical line, it should be displayed as is, otherwise you're the one being disruptive. Bus stop signage and bus "roll sign" information are both officially administered by AC Transit, that is as official and reliable as it gets and doesn't need an "reliable online" source to reinforce its credibility as both routes end at Oakland Airport and the usage of the logo makes sense. Regardless, perhaps I should source a report compiled by a subcontractor that proves this anyways? I will do whatever I think keeps our readers in the light, and the coordinates links unnecessarily require readers to go to GeoHack to look at a map of the station when one can simply be presented on the page in the infobox. To generally compare OpenRailwayMap with Wikipedia like that is just lazy and shows a lack of knowledge of that website, anonymous IP addresses cannot edit OpenRailwayMap like Wikipedia, and any edit made must be approved by reviewers before it is published, however, OpenRailwayMap does absolve itself of any liability in the event that it displays wrong information, not unlike your original "government report". TITANOSAURUS 03:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that clicking on the little globe pulls up an overlay map, right? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map isn't displaying properly on my desktop (502 gateway error), and the globe doesn't appear on mobile versions of the website so I cannot confirm this. Regardless I will then assume good faith and remove the map under the impression that the map just doesn't work on my end. TITANOSAURUS 03:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. I've put out a talk page notice, but until that issue is fixed I've re-added the map locator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Titanosaurus: The documentation for Infobox station was outdated; it's a relic from when the services section didn't exist, plus some ambiguity (since resolved) about the difference between a line and a service. Another outgrowth of that discussion was the maintenance of separate ((infobox rail line)) and ((infobox rail service)) templates. Line should not be a restatement of service. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: What I am trying to find out and what I have been asking Pi.1415926535 is where and when was this exactly discussed, I see a mention of the "services" field on the page, but the field doesn't work when I try to apply it to the page, and I see no discussion on the talk page that details what goes into that field, nor the "line" field. TITANOSAURUS 17:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there was one single central discussion; there often isn't for that kind of thing. Usage evolved over time. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so the physical line goes into the line field, while the services are displayed on the bottom, got it, I will revert my edit to that field and make it display the physical line that it's on again. TITANOSAURUS 17:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on bus table inclusion[edit]

The consensus is against adding the proposed table. Editors found that adding the table would be excessive detail for this article.

Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Bus service" section have a table that is somewhat similar to the one seen in good articles Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue and Flushing–Main Street? AC Transit views the station as one of its major transit centers, serving 12 routes (most of which are feeder routes terminating at the station) that carry over 2 million passengers a year combined (Source 1 for that statement, starts at Page A-1) (Source 2 for that statement, Page 20). My recent attempt at clarifying this issue using the dispute resolution process failed due to a lack of participation, so hopefully this process can finally bring me some clarification for the future. TITANOSAURUS 01:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about the bus ridership is deceptive, as it doesn't tell how many riders actually transfer at the station. The bus stop in front of my house serves bus routes totaling 22,500 riders per day (triple that of Coliseum); should it have its own article with a detailed list of routes and their service details? Of course not - it's literally a painted band on a pole, with maybe a few dozen boardings per day. The ridership of the services is irrelevant to the article about the station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will be willing to compromise and only include the routes and destinations, just like how the platform layout diagram lists only each of the services at the station and their respective destinations. As for your other points, is the stop near your house recognized by your local public transit agency as one of its major transfer points? Are the population numbers of your city similar to Oakland's? Does the bus agency carry around the same amount of riders as AC Transit? TITANOSAURUS 02:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I (along with AC Transit and BART) consider the station to be more of an intermodal transit hub between four different modes of transportation and four transportation providers. Why would a list that displays where each route goes from the station be more acceptable than the simple, well-formatted table that I am proposing? Flushing-Main Street was an example, but the table in the Coney Island page is more towards what I am going for. TITANOSAURUS 18:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If some of you are so convinced that bus routes shouldn't be added, maybe Hempstead (LIRR station) should be unmerged from Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DanTD: would you support the inclusion of the table here if I were to perhaps also remove the references in the "Routes" column and/or make the font even smaller so it doesn't take as much space? The content on the Hempstead page is very similar to the content I would like to be displayed on this page. Hempstead and Coliseum are both important intermodal transportation centers within the areas that they serve, and I believe that bus ridership at both stations compares well to rail ridership, although the Coliseum page doesn't really reflect this as much as the Hempstead page does. TITANOSAURUS 19:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenBlacker: List of AC Transit routes is where the list of information like the terminals of routes is compiled - as it is an article about the bus routes, not about a station they happen to serve. Including that information on this station article is merely duplication. (Note that AC Transit also has extremely detailed schedules and route maps, making it even less necessary for it to be on Wikipedia.) A collapsible table is disallowed for accessibility reasons - see MOS:DONTHIDE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: I did not realise collapsing tables by default caused an accessibility problem. Thank you for having pointed it out to me. — OwenBlacker (talk; please ((ping)) me in replies) 21:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be an article about the station, not an auxillary timetable/help guide for the transport company. Total waste of WP server space. The prose about how to buy tickets is irrelevant and crosses into promotional tone. There is too much detail in some parts, such as describing the side the doors open on. That's not within the scope of the article or Wikipedia. See WP:FAN. I'm surprised no-one has brought out their hatchet and stickytape yet. I can tell the prose is good faith but it needs seriously thinning down, not expanding. Cesdeva (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cesdeva: Why is showing where the rail services at as station (as seen in this article that I noticed you edited: Kuri railway station) go within the scope of Wikipedia, but not where the bus routes go? They are both modes of transportation that serve the station, and the article is about a station that is an intermodal transit center served by multiple modes of transportation that are all pretty much equally important to the complex's purpose in my opinion. Are you trying to say that the rail information is that much more important than the bus information? If so, why? I also see how you linked to WP:FAN, did you check out my links to other peer-reviewed good articles that display similar information? Is the table a violation of WP:FAN, or is it an essential part of a good article? TITANOSAURUS 00:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the GAs are out of scope and belong on Wikivoyage. Route numbers etc aren't relevant to the station, regardless of transport method. Providing examples from other articles similar to your proposition won't further your cause very much. Editors are wary of systematic judgement errors that occur from blindly copying ideas from other articles without establishing a strong, reasoned and local consensus. I think there is a bias towards hard-wired and long established (thus impactful and written extensively about) railway routes vs flexible, soft-linked bus routes. That didn't affect my reasoning in this rfc however. I was brought here by Legobot not because I've had a burning fatwā against this issue. My past selective editing has nothing to do with this. Regards, Cesdeva (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cesdeva: Route numbers are relevant to the station, in fact, there is a field in the station infobox that is exactly designed to display such information, that is not really what I am trying to discuss, what I am trying to discuss is the extent to which the route numbers or what not are relevant to the station. I likewise don't think that this a matter of judgment per se. As you can see in the peer-reviewed, GA-rated articles that I have linked to (among many other rail station articles on here), a strong consensus has in fact been reached in the past on this subject that appears to be more in line with my point of view. What I am trying to discuss and figure out here is whether that consensus has changed since that information has been added to those articles, and if so, why it has changed. Otherwise, I appreciate you thoroughly explaining your point of view and somewhat clarifying the other side of this issue for me, and I have nothing else to add at this time. TITANOSAURUS 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that discussion to me, as evidenced by the rather slow reaction to this request for comments, it seems like a lot of Wikipedia is simply confused on this issue at the moment judging by the consensus reached for the two train station articles I linked to and all of the airport articles on here versus the consensus being reached on this type of content for this article. Maybe a site wide consensus will be reached one day, maybe not, not something I really care about, but good to know for the future. TITANOSAURUS 05:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Oakland Coliseum station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

That's all I have for now, it's in good shape. On hold while we go over these. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the review! I believe I've addressed all your concerns above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still missing some info on some refs, e.g. ref 1 has no access date. And some overlinking still there (e.g. line names on the track tables). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the access date and reducing one incidence of overlinking. Unfortunately, the line names are probably not fixable within the scope of this GA review - the links are added by the ((rail color box)) template (which in turn uses links generated by ((adjacent stations))). But that's only three duplicate links total. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is all good now, well now. Promoting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverting[edit]

@Pi.1415926535: and @Titanosaurus: — Your recent edits feel like we’re venturing into WP:OWNERSHIP territory: No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it.

Also, Titanosaurus, I’d like to take this moment to remind you that you were previously punished for similar actions on this very same article. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RickyCourtney, I understand your concern about the recent back and forth editing on this page. However, my intention in reverting some of Pi.1415926535's edits was not to violate the Wikipedia:Ownership of content rule, but rather to ensure that the article remained easy to read and encyclopedic. While I do have a personal interest in this topic and have contributed a lot of content to this article, I do not feel possessive about it.
I also want to address your mention of my previous punishment for similar actions on this article. I take full responsibility for my actions in the past and have learned from my mistakes. I am committed to working collaboratively and in good faith with all editors on this article going forward.
I understand that Pi.1415926535 and I have a history of disagreement on this article, and I am willing to engage in civil and respectful discussions to try and find a resolution. I hope that we can all work together to improve the quality of the article and move forward in a positive direction. TITANOSAURUS 20:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to hear that you intend to collaborate. However, your good faith needs to be demonstrated in actions, not just words – in particular, accepting that others may disagree with your preferred wording. Your most recent revert re-added a number of issues, some of which were introduced by your edits from several weeks ago and some of which were older. Many of them are things like MOS compliance that should not be controversial; I find it particularly strange that you have repeatedly changed those.
  • The Oakland Coliseum station complex: Only one of the two stations is actually called "Oakland Coliseum"; having this be the opening of the article is misleading. The previous first paragraph was more clear.
  • along with Richmond station: too much detail for the lede
  • It was soon connected to its namesake: No reason to remove this
  • it closed on October 18: again, no reason to remove this
  • On July 1, 1977,...: This is one of several cases where having the date first makes the wording awkward.
  • Amtrak's Coast Starlight service began using the Union Pacific right-of-way in 1971,...: Two issues here. One, "long-distance" is useful context for why the Coast Starlight did not make local stops, and there was no reason to remove it. Two, your wording is ambiguous, as it implies that the Coast Starlight switched to that line from a different line. The previous wording makes it clear that the service began in 1971.
  • The new $6.6 million Oakland Coliseum station opened on June 6, 2005 and included a newly built connection...: no reason to remove "accessible", and see MOS:DATECOMMA.
  • Construction on the line began in October 2010, and it was officially renamed...: Awkward comma splice. Also, I'm not sure "officially" is needed, given that the renaming was quiet rather than publicly announced.
  • although AC Transit still provides a bus connection: not relevant to this station. Bus destinations were already discussed in the RFC you started.
  • began construction in: Buildings are inanimate objects and do not begin construction; they are constructed.
  • the 73rd Avenue cul-de-sac: no reason to remove this
  • three sets of benches: not supported by the cited source
  • Capitol Corridor trains regularly meet at the CP 66th Avenue and CP Coliseum interlockings, located immediately north and south of the station, respectively, as the service primarily operates on a single-track between Oakland and San Jose. I removed this claim because it is unsourced. Unsourced claims are not appropriate for good articles.
  • Niles Subdivision: obvious case of WP:REDYES
  • elevated three-level structure: term should be linked on the first usage in this paragraph - see MOS:LINKONCE
  • Oakland Subdivision: no reason to remove this link.
  • the Coliseum-Oakland International Airport line platform features: no need to specify which line - it's already specified a few sentences above. "Features" borders on MOS:FLOWERY and isn't needed. This version of the paragraph is too wordy.
  • Coliseum-Oakland: MOS:ENDASH
  • The Oakland Coliseum station is one... All of the bus connections are at Coliseum station (BART), not Oakland Coliseum station (Amtrak).
  • eight AC Transit bus routes: no reason to remove this link
  • These shuttle services: The previous sentence already explained that these are shuttle services. No need to reiterate.
  • Trainweb link: This is largely depreciated as an external link. It's a self-published fansite, and any relevant images can be transferred to Commons (see commons:Template:Usarail).
  • Category:Railway stations in the United States opened in 2014: no reason to remove this
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories