This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T Third Street article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:T Third Street. |
Initially, I had heard that this line was essentially going to be an extension of the K line -- K trains would change their signs to T at West Portal, and vice-versa. Is this no longer the case? -- Jfruh ( talk) 23:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I keep seeing it written differently in different places, on some of the stickers they've put up I think it's called the "T-Third Street", but on Muni's web site, it's rather annoyingly all caps "T-THIRD." Is the offical name really "T-Third Street" with "T-Third" used as shorthand? At Powell Station at least, they put the sticker for the T-Line before the J-Line. Leave it to Muni to screw up something as simple as alphabetical order.
Muni also writes them out in most places as the letter/number, then a dash and the line name. Seeing all the lines labelled without dashes just looks wrong to me.
The article notes that the T Third uses a station at 4th and King that is separate from the one that the N Judah has used since the Embarcadero extension opened. What will become of the older station? Will it be used by the J during rush hour? -- Jfruh ( talk) 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
First off the article "Are New Muni Platforms A Safety Risk?" is used twice as a source but reported as if it was two different sources. Secondly, I would like to point out that the Muni official quoted in the article does not actually validate the claims of the ABC article and the way it is quoted here is misleading. If no one objects in the next few weeks I will remove the part about the platform hights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.202.145 ( talk) 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the edit, the T just began, and never served Eureka, and doesn't make sense to mention this station on the listing. However I feel the K, L, M are okay because they had served this station when it was still open, before Castro was built, and should me mentioned in the station listing. SFOetthekid 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a question for future reference, but just want to know, I noticed the line maps are now part of the infoboxes, I wanted to edit a part of it, but I can't seem to find it in the Edit page section. How are we going to be able to edit the maps say a change in service occurs? SFOetthekid ( talk) 05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I know this isn't the preferred term, but it seems to accurately capture the way the K/T is operated. I would like your suggestions for better terminology that we can use to describe the sudden change of the train's identity; hiding this information from the unwary Wikipedia reader would appear to be a disservice. I realize this operational quirk of the K/T is covered in the intro paragraph, but I believe such a confusing train 'interlink/interline/conjoining' is a controversy and should be covered as such. Also, there aren't many (any[?]) 'through running' lines (in other parts of the world) that are operated in an asymmetric manner. Thanks! -- Inetpup ( talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
{{merge|OTHERPAGE| discuss=Talk:THIS PAGE#Merger proposal|date=July 2008}}
{{mergeto|DESTINATIONPAGE| discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=July 2008}}
{{mergefrom|SOURCEPAGE| discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=July 2008}}
I oppose the merge. They are for all official purposes two distinct lines, even if the trains run on both. Our prior inability to explain the situation more clearly does not require us to merge the articles to avoid the problem (I think it would only cause more problems). Oh, and there is no single term for this unique situation, so it's not in our interests to coin a neologism when we can just describe the situation more succinctly. — Kurykh 04:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The premetro article contained a great deal of original research, and characterized a large number of light-rail or streetcar routes as "premetro" systems for questionable reasons -- like that the light-rail or streetcar system had a short tunneled section. More recently the premetro article has been scaled back, to only include systems that verifiable authoritative sources have called "premetro" systems.
Unfortunately dozens of questionable incoming links were made to the premetro article, from articles like this one, that didn't supply any references that verified systems like this one had ever been called premetro systems.
I am going to place a {{ dubious}} tag next to all questionable claims that provide questionable incoming links to premetro.
If no authoritative references ever called this a "premetro" system that phrase should be removed from this article, link and all. Geo Swan ( talk) 18:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Red Line (Muni Metro) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Red Line (Muni Metro) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Red Line (San Francisco) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Red Line (San Francisco) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Muni Metro Red Line and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Muni Metro Red Line until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Red Line (San Francisco Muni Metro) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Red Line (San Francisco Muni Metro) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)