![]() | This article is rated Start-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:JTA Skyway. |
It has also been argued that the Skyway was a scam to gain large amounts of money through taxes related to the projects and payments from the contractors, especially in light of the undisclosed millions spent to build only a few miles of track.
Argued by whom? This sounds like conspiracy-theory level POV to me.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.199.36 ( talk • contribs)
The specification of what country this is in is not necessary, and is especially abnormal for names of places in the United States. dcandeto 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, All.
A practice's commonness or rarity matters only so much. What matters more is the usefulness of information and the convenience of access to it.
While Florida is probably likelier to be known, than unknown, in the rest of the world as being part of the United States, is the same true of, say, Nebraska? No. Instead of assuming that everyone knows that this state or that state is a part of the U.S., the courteous, logical, fair thing to do is, at the first mention of a U.S. state in any article, mention also that the place designated by that name is part of the United States. Surely, we would expect the same for a mention a Nunavut (Canadian territory), Styria (Austrian province), Dumfries and Galloway (in Scotland), Anbar (Iraqi province), Haryana (Indian state), Queensland (Australian state), Mokhotlong (district in Lesotho), Cleveland (English county abolished in 1996), etc.
If a reader doesn't already know that Florida is in the United States, the reader has to follow a link to find that out.
We can reasonably apply to the United States the same "Specify geographic location up to the level of country, but don't bother so much with hemispheres and continents" standard that works well and courteously for mentions of locations in other countries.
President Lethe 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, dcandeto.
Jacksonville is a place. So is the Skyway: it includes a fixed route over which a vehicle moves; this route is fixed to the Earth and spans miles of it.
Again, this is not about consistency with some other articles that are also illogically lacking in certain basic information.
Let's all remember to steer clear of sarcasm, especially in editing articles themselves.
Mentions of U.S. places deserve the same treatment that is logically applied in the better way of mentioning non-U.S. places. (And mentions are more than just articles named for specific places.)
Thanks for pointing out the shortcoming in the Jeb Bush article, though. I'll add the missing info. Every time I come across such an omission, or get word of it, I fill in the extra detail.)
President Lethe 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello again.
In my head, any term that can be given as an answer to "Where are you?" or "Where is it?" (e.g., "I'm on the Skyway", "I left my wallet on the Skyway") is a place.
I hope people don't give you flak, and I'm glad you're helping to insert country names at first mentions of most sub-country-level places, to help establish geographic context for readers unfamiliar with those places' locations.
Just to clarify: I agree with you that most of Wikipedia's mentions of U.S. places don't include country locators; but, as you correctly ascertain, I think many that don't should.
I also should clarify my own position that this doesn't necessarily have to occur in every single instance. For example: in the Jeb Bush article, which I edited after you brought it to my attention, I set the U.S. context in the article opening by mentioning that Florida was in the United States, but I didn't go on to write "in the United States" after that article's mentions of other U.S. states, such as Texas.
The first time an article brings up a location that is in a country, or each time it switches to a previously unmentioned place in a new country, there should be mention of the country; but, when no international shifts are occurring, countries needn't be mentioned every time.
For example: "Person X was born in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in the United States. At age 11, X moved to Albuquerque. [No repeat of "New Mexico", because we haven't yet mentioned any other states.] At age 23, X moved to Long Beach, California. [No repeat of "United States", because we haven't yet mentioned any other countries.] Three months later, X went to visit London, England. [England is mentioned (even though it's probably most readers' expectation for London), because the London mention is the first mention of a second country.] While there, X decided to tour Darlington. [No repeat of "England", because we haven't mentioned any non-England places since mentioning London.] Afterwards, X returned to Long Beach via London. [No repeat of "California" or "United States" for Long Beach, because its state and country locations have already been established; no repeat of "England" for London, because its country location has already been established.]"
President Lethe 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not perform massive changes on the article and related articles without discussing them first. Keeping the stations separate is consistent with just about all mass transit articles on Wikipedia (see Toronto, Montréal, New York, Miami, etc. dcandeto 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The new changes made to the article, including the new infobox and the table of stations should not be reverted. Please make sure that all editors assume good faith when editing the article. Reverting non-vandalized edits is not assuming good faith. These changes have only expanded the article and made it more detailed, therefore there is no reason for them to be removed. Unless the changes involve major article reformatting, there is no reason to have to discuss them beforehand, unless they are controversial in some sense. – Dream out loud ( talk) 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is categorized as being a "UM people mover" which is a reference to Universal Mobility who produced monorails (one such version is the Monorail at Hersheypark). This article does not mention Universal Mobility in anyway, and for that matter, doesn't mention who produced it initially, only who refitted it. So, can anyone confirm who built it, and if it was Universal Mobility or not? Thanks. -- Son ( talk) 17:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Based on the use of FCCJ in the article and FCCJ in the station article, I may have vandalised the text by changing FSCJ to FCCJ.
The use of the two names is inconsistent and confusing throughout the titles and content of articles discussing Florida State/Community College at Jacksonville.
I apologize for the confusion.
Someone needs to clear the issue up and make relevant changes to all wiki articles discussing FSCJ/FCCJ a main article should be made for each name of the institution with one linking to the current name where the entire article could reside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.4.237 ( talk) 18:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There is one article per station, but I doubt any would pass a DR at this stage ( WP:GNG, WP:EXIST, WP:OTHERSTUFF, etc). Most have very similar information that would be better suited in a more generalised history section, and each station dealt with in the main article. Something very similar has been done at Light Rail in Sydney (see Inner West Light Rail) and I suggest it would improve the article. I thought I should post something on the talk page before doing anything, noting that there was a similar move/discussion about 6 years ago, however, in that time policies for inclusion have changed. What are the thoughts of other contributors? Liamdavies ( talk) 15:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other examples of this format in use, specifically in the US? The Inner West Light Rail was a nicely written article, but I have not seen any other examples of that style page. Even other light rail lines in Sydney seemed to not follow the Inner West standard. Also, wikipedia links on Google maps help guide users to stations. Would a merger remove these icons on google maps? I do see the benefit of making pages for the lines instead of stations, with the Skyway being a small system. I feel like I've seen the simultaneous application of both formats in an attempt to define a transit system. I don't see pages as a bad thing as long as station pages are linked. These pages may be linked for multitude of reasons. A station could be included in lists, categories, rankings, news events, and media files, not to mention topics like architecture, transportation, sustainability, urban planning. The ubiquitous nature of the transit station infobox on almost all transit stations in the US would make me a little hesitant. Some kind of threshold would have to exist that states, transits systems with <# stations should have separate pages. Or should it be based on ridership? I feel like there are a lot of unknowns. Tell me what you think. Mathew105601 ( talk) 23:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It's been almost two weeks, any more thoughts on this? Liamdavies ( talk) 14:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, below is a prototype of what I'm thinking (yes I know the coding is somewhat lazy), some of the text may be moved elsewhere compiled with other articles (there is a bit of overlap), but as a concept what do you think? Liamdavies ( talk) 06:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
| |||
Layout | Opened | Transfer | |
---|---|---|---|
1
island platform 2 track |
1997 | ![]() (18 bays) | |
Location | |||
201 Union Street West,
Jacksonville 30°19′59.67″N 81°39′31.63″W / 30.3332417°N 81.6587861°W |
Rosa Parks Transit Station is an intermodal transit station in Downtown Jacksonville, Florida. It is operated by the Jacksonville Transportation Authority and serves as Jacksonville's main city bus station as well as a station on the Jacksonville Skyway elevated people mover. It is located on Hogan Street between State Street and Union Street, and is the Skyway's northern terminus. It is across the street from the Downtown campus of Florida State College at Jacksonville. [1]
The station was built in 1997 to serve as both a new bus station and the northern terminus of the new north-south segment of the Jacksonville Skyway. Construction on the Skyway extension began in 1993, and coincided with the system's switch from Matra to Bombardier Transportation technology. The station became operational on December 15, 1997. [2]
As Jacksonville's major bus transfer point, the station features eighteen bays for city buses. [3] Bus transfers are made on the ground level, with the Skyway element on the elevated platform. [2] Highly regarded among intermodal stations in transit circles, Rosa Parks Transit Station has won awards for its architectural design. [3]
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
Over two years after it was completed, I think we should revisit the question of covering all the Skyway stations at this page. I supported the measure before, but I'm afraid as the article expands (and hopefully, as the Skyway expands in the future) it will continue to clutter the article. I'm thinking of reworking the section as just a summary of the stations and the line without all the other info, and moving the main info elsewhere. This could entail moving to a separate article, or moving back to individual articles (which remains standard on Wikipedia). Unfortunately, the person who headed the consolidation, Liamdavies, has retired from Wikipedia. Mathew105601, do you have any input?-- Cúchullain t/ c 17:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-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:JTA Skyway. |
It has also been argued that the Skyway was a scam to gain large amounts of money through taxes related to the projects and payments from the contractors, especially in light of the undisclosed millions spent to build only a few miles of track.
Argued by whom? This sounds like conspiracy-theory level POV to me.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.199.36 ( talk • contribs)
The specification of what country this is in is not necessary, and is especially abnormal for names of places in the United States. dcandeto 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, All.
A practice's commonness or rarity matters only so much. What matters more is the usefulness of information and the convenience of access to it.
While Florida is probably likelier to be known, than unknown, in the rest of the world as being part of the United States, is the same true of, say, Nebraska? No. Instead of assuming that everyone knows that this state or that state is a part of the U.S., the courteous, logical, fair thing to do is, at the first mention of a U.S. state in any article, mention also that the place designated by that name is part of the United States. Surely, we would expect the same for a mention a Nunavut (Canadian territory), Styria (Austrian province), Dumfries and Galloway (in Scotland), Anbar (Iraqi province), Haryana (Indian state), Queensland (Australian state), Mokhotlong (district in Lesotho), Cleveland (English county abolished in 1996), etc.
If a reader doesn't already know that Florida is in the United States, the reader has to follow a link to find that out.
We can reasonably apply to the United States the same "Specify geographic location up to the level of country, but don't bother so much with hemispheres and continents" standard that works well and courteously for mentions of locations in other countries.
President Lethe 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, dcandeto.
Jacksonville is a place. So is the Skyway: it includes a fixed route over which a vehicle moves; this route is fixed to the Earth and spans miles of it.
Again, this is not about consistency with some other articles that are also illogically lacking in certain basic information.
Let's all remember to steer clear of sarcasm, especially in editing articles themselves.
Mentions of U.S. places deserve the same treatment that is logically applied in the better way of mentioning non-U.S. places. (And mentions are more than just articles named for specific places.)
Thanks for pointing out the shortcoming in the Jeb Bush article, though. I'll add the missing info. Every time I come across such an omission, or get word of it, I fill in the extra detail.)
President Lethe 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello again.
In my head, any term that can be given as an answer to "Where are you?" or "Where is it?" (e.g., "I'm on the Skyway", "I left my wallet on the Skyway") is a place.
I hope people don't give you flak, and I'm glad you're helping to insert country names at first mentions of most sub-country-level places, to help establish geographic context for readers unfamiliar with those places' locations.
Just to clarify: I agree with you that most of Wikipedia's mentions of U.S. places don't include country locators; but, as you correctly ascertain, I think many that don't should.
I also should clarify my own position that this doesn't necessarily have to occur in every single instance. For example: in the Jeb Bush article, which I edited after you brought it to my attention, I set the U.S. context in the article opening by mentioning that Florida was in the United States, but I didn't go on to write "in the United States" after that article's mentions of other U.S. states, such as Texas.
The first time an article brings up a location that is in a country, or each time it switches to a previously unmentioned place in a new country, there should be mention of the country; but, when no international shifts are occurring, countries needn't be mentioned every time.
For example: "Person X was born in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in the United States. At age 11, X moved to Albuquerque. [No repeat of "New Mexico", because we haven't yet mentioned any other states.] At age 23, X moved to Long Beach, California. [No repeat of "United States", because we haven't yet mentioned any other countries.] Three months later, X went to visit London, England. [England is mentioned (even though it's probably most readers' expectation for London), because the London mention is the first mention of a second country.] While there, X decided to tour Darlington. [No repeat of "England", because we haven't mentioned any non-England places since mentioning London.] Afterwards, X returned to Long Beach via London. [No repeat of "California" or "United States" for Long Beach, because its state and country locations have already been established; no repeat of "England" for London, because its country location has already been established.]"
President Lethe 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not perform massive changes on the article and related articles without discussing them first. Keeping the stations separate is consistent with just about all mass transit articles on Wikipedia (see Toronto, Montréal, New York, Miami, etc. dcandeto 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The new changes made to the article, including the new infobox and the table of stations should not be reverted. Please make sure that all editors assume good faith when editing the article. Reverting non-vandalized edits is not assuming good faith. These changes have only expanded the article and made it more detailed, therefore there is no reason for them to be removed. Unless the changes involve major article reformatting, there is no reason to have to discuss them beforehand, unless they are controversial in some sense. – Dream out loud ( talk) 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is categorized as being a "UM people mover" which is a reference to Universal Mobility who produced monorails (one such version is the Monorail at Hersheypark). This article does not mention Universal Mobility in anyway, and for that matter, doesn't mention who produced it initially, only who refitted it. So, can anyone confirm who built it, and if it was Universal Mobility or not? Thanks. -- Son ( talk) 17:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Based on the use of FCCJ in the article and FCCJ in the station article, I may have vandalised the text by changing FSCJ to FCCJ.
The use of the two names is inconsistent and confusing throughout the titles and content of articles discussing Florida State/Community College at Jacksonville.
I apologize for the confusion.
Someone needs to clear the issue up and make relevant changes to all wiki articles discussing FSCJ/FCCJ a main article should be made for each name of the institution with one linking to the current name where the entire article could reside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.4.237 ( talk) 18:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There is one article per station, but I doubt any would pass a DR at this stage ( WP:GNG, WP:EXIST, WP:OTHERSTUFF, etc). Most have very similar information that would be better suited in a more generalised history section, and each station dealt with in the main article. Something very similar has been done at Light Rail in Sydney (see Inner West Light Rail) and I suggest it would improve the article. I thought I should post something on the talk page before doing anything, noting that there was a similar move/discussion about 6 years ago, however, in that time policies for inclusion have changed. What are the thoughts of other contributors? Liamdavies ( talk) 15:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other examples of this format in use, specifically in the US? The Inner West Light Rail was a nicely written article, but I have not seen any other examples of that style page. Even other light rail lines in Sydney seemed to not follow the Inner West standard. Also, wikipedia links on Google maps help guide users to stations. Would a merger remove these icons on google maps? I do see the benefit of making pages for the lines instead of stations, with the Skyway being a small system. I feel like I've seen the simultaneous application of both formats in an attempt to define a transit system. I don't see pages as a bad thing as long as station pages are linked. These pages may be linked for multitude of reasons. A station could be included in lists, categories, rankings, news events, and media files, not to mention topics like architecture, transportation, sustainability, urban planning. The ubiquitous nature of the transit station infobox on almost all transit stations in the US would make me a little hesitant. Some kind of threshold would have to exist that states, transits systems with <# stations should have separate pages. Or should it be based on ridership? I feel like there are a lot of unknowns. Tell me what you think. Mathew105601 ( talk) 23:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It's been almost two weeks, any more thoughts on this? Liamdavies ( talk) 14:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, below is a prototype of what I'm thinking (yes I know the coding is somewhat lazy), some of the text may be moved elsewhere compiled with other articles (there is a bit of overlap), but as a concept what do you think? Liamdavies ( talk) 06:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
| |||
Layout | Opened | Transfer | |
---|---|---|---|
1
island platform 2 track |
1997 | ![]() (18 bays) | |
Location | |||
201 Union Street West,
Jacksonville 30°19′59.67″N 81°39′31.63″W / 30.3332417°N 81.6587861°W |
Rosa Parks Transit Station is an intermodal transit station in Downtown Jacksonville, Florida. It is operated by the Jacksonville Transportation Authority and serves as Jacksonville's main city bus station as well as a station on the Jacksonville Skyway elevated people mover. It is located on Hogan Street between State Street and Union Street, and is the Skyway's northern terminus. It is across the street from the Downtown campus of Florida State College at Jacksonville. [1]
The station was built in 1997 to serve as both a new bus station and the northern terminus of the new north-south segment of the Jacksonville Skyway. Construction on the Skyway extension began in 1993, and coincided with the system's switch from Matra to Bombardier Transportation technology. The station became operational on December 15, 1997. [2]
As Jacksonville's major bus transfer point, the station features eighteen bays for city buses. [3] Bus transfers are made on the ground level, with the Skyway element on the elevated platform. [2] Highly regarded among intermodal stations in transit circles, Rosa Parks Transit Station has won awards for its architectural design. [3]
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
Over two years after it was completed, I think we should revisit the question of covering all the Skyway stations at this page. I supported the measure before, but I'm afraid as the article expands (and hopefully, as the Skyway expands in the future) it will continue to clutter the article. I'm thinking of reworking the section as just a summary of the stations and the line without all the other info, and moving the main info elsewhere. This could entail moving to a separate article, or moving back to individual articles (which remains standard on Wikipedia). Unfortunately, the person who headed the consolidation, Liamdavies, has retired from Wikipedia. Mathew105601, do you have any input?-- Cúchullain t/ c 17:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)