Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Green Line (MBTA) 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-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:MBTA Green Line. |
Green Line (MBTA) was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 2, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
The contents of the History of the MBTA Green Line page were merged into Green Line (MBTA). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Green Line Extension is not about a new transit line, meerly about the continuation of a current one. There is no need for two articles about the same thing, seeing that there is already an extensive section about the Future Plans of the greenline in the Green Line (MBTA) article-- Found5dollar ( talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
First, the title is ambiguous, as there's more than one green line, and green line extension being proposed. Also is this THE singular extension to the the green line? No extensions in the past, none in the future? When the project is done, is this to be merged with the green line article? I'm suggesting a merge, or at least a less ambiguous title, because of all the other green lines that may or may not be expanding in the world. 69.231.205.88 ( talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Why address in the context as an E Line extension? The E Line travels south of the Boston Core, to Jamaica Plain. The proposed extension would travel in the opposite direction, north to Somerville. Dogru144 ( talk) 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the high degree of overlap, I implemented the merge, preserving the external links as requested. -- Beland ( talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The Green Line Extension is now officially under construction. As such, I've moved much of the content back to Green Line Extension page, with an appropriate summary left here. It's just as well - the full-length section was a full quarter of the article! Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 23:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The "History" section of the Green Line article is quite comprehensive, but is much too long and detailed for many first-time readers. Also, there has been a long-standing proposal to merge in the Tremont Street Subway article, which would make the entire Green Line article even longer. It would seem appropriate to split out the History section as a separate article, leaving just the introductory part before the Portals listing behind in the Green Line article. I think that merging the Tremont Street Subway article into the new History article would be a good idea, but am willing to consider leaving it separate. A possible name for the new article is Green Line (MBTA History), but other ideas are solicited. Any comments? Reify-tech ( talk) 12:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"Green Line (MBTA History)" makes it sound like there's a whole MBTA History category. Perhaps "History of the MBTA Green Line" or something along those lines. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
How about "MBTA History (Green Line)" ? I'd like to keep the article titles short and concise. This format allows for "MBTA History (Red Line)", "MBTA History (Buses)" and such to be added if and when appropriate, without the titles becoming too unwieldy to type easily, Reify-tech ( talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, the Route Map (line and station diagram) is missing the "B" Boston College Line. A stub is visible just beyond Kenmore station, but nothing connects to it. On the other hand, completing the Route Map will make the infobox sidebar even longer, pushing the photos even further down a very long page. Should there be some sort of ""Hide/Show" feature to allow the reader to control this? I'm not skilled in setting up these line diagrams, so I hope somebody can step forward to complete the diagram. Reify-tech ( talk) 13:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I've got a stable version now. I still need to do some formatting, link the station names, and so on, but the current version should do till tomorrow. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 05:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The article contains the questionable claim the green Line was built to "pre-metro standards". I have several problems with this claim. First, the term "premetro" was only coined in the 1970, many decades after the Green Line's tunnels were built. Second, if I read the references properly, only a short segment of the original Green Line tunnels -- about one kilometer -- was built to heavy rail standards for dimensions and turning radius. Third, was there ever any plan that the green line stations should be long enough to accommodate a heavy rail trainset?
So, I think this passage should be rewritten so it doesn't reference pre-metro. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Would the proper term be train or trolly when referring to the green line? Currently the article uses both terms. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sportsguy17 ( talk · contribs) 04:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'll be the reviewer for this article. I've taken a quick look at this article and so far, I see some major issues with this article just at first glance. There are still some tags (i.e "When" and "Clarification needed" tags), in addition to some poorly referenced sections, which does not meet the
Good Article criterion. This is going to be a quick-fail unless you would like for me to go through how to proceed with this article so that it has a chance of passing in the future. If not, I may go ahead and make the improvements myself (which means I wouldn't be able to review this article if it is a GA nominee ever again). Sorry,
Sportsguy17 (
T •
C) 04:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
What is happening with the infobox at the top of the page? Why is it refusing to display (for me at least)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably better to consolidate discussion at Template talk:MBTA Green Line now that it's working in the article. I've addressed some of your concerns there. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have boldly merged the article History of the MBTA Green Line here. See corresponding talk page thread. Epic Genius ( talk) 20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Green Line (MBTA). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
A quick check suggests this isn't in the article -- and usable for more than Green Line, too! http://www.bostonstreetcars.com/ E Eng 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Green Line (MBTA). 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Green Line (MBTA). 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Can there be new wiki pages for the Type 7 and Type 8 Cars? RedProofHill123 ( talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
RedProofHill123 ( talk) 00:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Well if theres a article for S70 and R46 and some others, all trains need articles. Thats wikipedia. Also Type 7 and Type 8 cars have great history to it. Boston has very good history about its trains. So thats why they need articles.
RedProofHill123 ( talk) 17:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)They are notable because stocks in Boston have history to them and its the first subway in America. I think almost all train should have a article to them.
There is a discussion at Talk:Central subway (Boston)#Subway capitalization that relates to recent edits here that would capitalise "central subway (Boston)".
I also note that central subway (Boston) has been nominated for deletion. My observation is that: if the subway is not sufficiently notable to have its own article, then it is not sufficiently notable in the collective consciousness to be recognised as a proper name and capitalised. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The schematic figure shows North Station as an elevated station. It hasn't been elevated in more than 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.242.139.199 ( talk) 03:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The entire incidents and accidents section contains nothing but brief summaries of routine news reports of minor incidents and accidents. Per WP:NOTNEWS, to wit "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" and most of the information in this section lacks any greater significance outside of the short time when the accident was reported. This kind of indiscriminate listing of mostly unremarkable events should probably be entirely removed, unless someone can find where these events are covered outside of the news cycle when they occurred. -- Jayron 32 18:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I've seen the MBTA run one-car trains during weekday hours. Maybe outdated source? AriTheHorse Talk to me! 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
scheduled use. There are occasional one-car trains run for various reasons - shortages of rolling stock, service disruptions, issues with one car in a two-car train, etc - but these are unscheduled and uncommon. The latest source I have available - Rollsign magazine Jan/Feb 2023 issue - indicates that all Green Line service is scheduled as two-car trains. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Green Line (MBTA) 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-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:MBTA Green Line. |
Green Line (MBTA) was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 2, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
The contents of the History of the MBTA Green Line page were merged into Green Line (MBTA). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Green Line Extension is not about a new transit line, meerly about the continuation of a current one. There is no need for two articles about the same thing, seeing that there is already an extensive section about the Future Plans of the greenline in the Green Line (MBTA) article-- Found5dollar ( talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
First, the title is ambiguous, as there's more than one green line, and green line extension being proposed. Also is this THE singular extension to the the green line? No extensions in the past, none in the future? When the project is done, is this to be merged with the green line article? I'm suggesting a merge, or at least a less ambiguous title, because of all the other green lines that may or may not be expanding in the world. 69.231.205.88 ( talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Why address in the context as an E Line extension? The E Line travels south of the Boston Core, to Jamaica Plain. The proposed extension would travel in the opposite direction, north to Somerville. Dogru144 ( talk) 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the high degree of overlap, I implemented the merge, preserving the external links as requested. -- Beland ( talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The Green Line Extension is now officially under construction. As such, I've moved much of the content back to Green Line Extension page, with an appropriate summary left here. It's just as well - the full-length section was a full quarter of the article! Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 23:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The "History" section of the Green Line article is quite comprehensive, but is much too long and detailed for many first-time readers. Also, there has been a long-standing proposal to merge in the Tremont Street Subway article, which would make the entire Green Line article even longer. It would seem appropriate to split out the History section as a separate article, leaving just the introductory part before the Portals listing behind in the Green Line article. I think that merging the Tremont Street Subway article into the new History article would be a good idea, but am willing to consider leaving it separate. A possible name for the new article is Green Line (MBTA History), but other ideas are solicited. Any comments? Reify-tech ( talk) 12:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"Green Line (MBTA History)" makes it sound like there's a whole MBTA History category. Perhaps "History of the MBTA Green Line" or something along those lines. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
How about "MBTA History (Green Line)" ? I'd like to keep the article titles short and concise. This format allows for "MBTA History (Red Line)", "MBTA History (Buses)" and such to be added if and when appropriate, without the titles becoming too unwieldy to type easily, Reify-tech ( talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, the Route Map (line and station diagram) is missing the "B" Boston College Line. A stub is visible just beyond Kenmore station, but nothing connects to it. On the other hand, completing the Route Map will make the infobox sidebar even longer, pushing the photos even further down a very long page. Should there be some sort of ""Hide/Show" feature to allow the reader to control this? I'm not skilled in setting up these line diagrams, so I hope somebody can step forward to complete the diagram. Reify-tech ( talk) 13:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I've got a stable version now. I still need to do some formatting, link the station names, and so on, but the current version should do till tomorrow. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 05:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The article contains the questionable claim the green Line was built to "pre-metro standards". I have several problems with this claim. First, the term "premetro" was only coined in the 1970, many decades after the Green Line's tunnels were built. Second, if I read the references properly, only a short segment of the original Green Line tunnels -- about one kilometer -- was built to heavy rail standards for dimensions and turning radius. Third, was there ever any plan that the green line stations should be long enough to accommodate a heavy rail trainset?
So, I think this passage should be rewritten so it doesn't reference pre-metro. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Would the proper term be train or trolly when referring to the green line? Currently the article uses both terms. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sportsguy17 ( talk · contribs) 04:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'll be the reviewer for this article. I've taken a quick look at this article and so far, I see some major issues with this article just at first glance. There are still some tags (i.e "When" and "Clarification needed" tags), in addition to some poorly referenced sections, which does not meet the
Good Article criterion. This is going to be a quick-fail unless you would like for me to go through how to proceed with this article so that it has a chance of passing in the future. If not, I may go ahead and make the improvements myself (which means I wouldn't be able to review this article if it is a GA nominee ever again). Sorry,
Sportsguy17 (
T •
C) 04:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
What is happening with the infobox at the top of the page? Why is it refusing to display (for me at least)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably better to consolidate discussion at Template talk:MBTA Green Line now that it's working in the article. I've addressed some of your concerns there. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have boldly merged the article History of the MBTA Green Line here. See corresponding talk page thread. Epic Genius ( talk) 20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Green Line (MBTA). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
A quick check suggests this isn't in the article -- and usable for more than Green Line, too! http://www.bostonstreetcars.com/ E Eng 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Green Line (MBTA). 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Green Line (MBTA). 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Can there be new wiki pages for the Type 7 and Type 8 Cars? RedProofHill123 ( talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
RedProofHill123 ( talk) 00:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Well if theres a article for S70 and R46 and some others, all trains need articles. Thats wikipedia. Also Type 7 and Type 8 cars have great history to it. Boston has very good history about its trains. So thats why they need articles.
RedProofHill123 ( talk) 17:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)They are notable because stocks in Boston have history to them and its the first subway in America. I think almost all train should have a article to them.
There is a discussion at Talk:Central subway (Boston)#Subway capitalization that relates to recent edits here that would capitalise "central subway (Boston)".
I also note that central subway (Boston) has been nominated for deletion. My observation is that: if the subway is not sufficiently notable to have its own article, then it is not sufficiently notable in the collective consciousness to be recognised as a proper name and capitalised. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The schematic figure shows North Station as an elevated station. It hasn't been elevated in more than 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.242.139.199 ( talk) 03:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The entire incidents and accidents section contains nothing but brief summaries of routine news reports of minor incidents and accidents. Per WP:NOTNEWS, to wit "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" and most of the information in this section lacks any greater significance outside of the short time when the accident was reported. This kind of indiscriminate listing of mostly unremarkable events should probably be entirely removed, unless someone can find where these events are covered outside of the news cycle when they occurred. -- Jayron 32 18:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I've seen the MBTA run one-car trains during weekday hours. Maybe outdated source? AriTheHorse Talk to me! 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
scheduled use. There are occasional one-car trains run for various reasons - shortages of rolling stock, service disruptions, issues with one car in a two-car train, etc - but these are unscheduled and uncommon. The latest source I have available - Rollsign magazine Jan/Feb 2023 issue - indicates that all Green Line service is scheduled as two-car trains. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)