# Talk:Link light rail

@SounderBruce Re: Land Use Impacts, I agree that in text attribution is maybe unnecessary but think it would be helpful to at least include the source because it speaks to local land use impacts and the relationship between Link Light Rail and changing land use / transportation behaviors. Your thoughts?  MarcusLeland (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There are better sources out there for the land-use impacts that Link has specifically affected; enabling students and workers to commute in from further out, more affordable housing is applicable to most transit systems and is thus unremarkable. This is a summary article for the system and should not be going into those kinds of details. SounderBruce 20:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you propose an additional article or? MarcusLeland (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Following up on this, by this metric would it not be logical then to remove this "By concentrating new development along light rail lines (a practice known as "transit-oriented development"), more people can live more densely without the increases in automotive commuting traffic that might otherwise be expected. In addition, the concentration of residents near stations helps maintain ridership and revenue. Climate change activists also point out that compact development around light rail lines has been shown to result in reductions in residents' CO2 emissions, compared to more conventional suburban automotive commutes." because it applicable to most transit systems and thus unremarkable. And not sure what you mean by better sources for land-use impacts Link has specifically affected.  MarcusLeland (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I haven't touched that section yet, so what is written there is entirely disposable to me until I get back to it. SounderBruce 07:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking think it is warranted to include this given that there are criticisms and ongoing issues / debate around Link Light Rail and starting a new article on this would split it up which is not conducive to Wiki policies.  MarcusLeland (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

See the essay at WP:CRIT. A mixed bag section is to be avoided, and it's better to spread it out into appropriate sections. I'm hoping to take this article to GA and FA status in the near future when the dust settles on the Line 2 situation, so it'd be best to avoid making a mess out of things in the meantime. SounderBruce 22:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Read the essay. Understand you are looking to take the article to GA / FA status but do not think that the article should be compromised / watered down by excluding mention of valid criticism (disability access, technology / design choices, etc. ) in the interest of GA / FA article status. That said, I acknowledge that it would be best spread out into appropriate sections as the essay points out - when I have time I will work on incorporating this (understanding that for something like accessibility, this would require a section or similar on accessibility across the entire system).  MarcusLeland (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Recently, I've been adding line colors to the route diagram templates and interactive maps of many different public transport systems across the United States, as well as their individual line articles (like for example, what I've been doing on the articles for Los Angeles Metro Rail, etc.) and consolidating them all in the articles' infoboxes. I was curious if it would be fine for me to do it here, for the Link light rail system, and also adding interactive maps to the other public transportation systems like the Sounder commuter rail and others. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Link is a weird system with two (soon to be three) disconnected lines, so I don't think cramming the interactive map into the infobox is a good use of space at the moment. I would be opposed to throwing Sounder and other rail systems into the map, as Wikimedia Maps do a very poor job of showing legends or labels, so it would mislead readers into thinking Link includes those lines. SounderBruce 03:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough then.
Just to clarify though when I am referring to Sounder and the other rail systems, I don't mean to cram them all into one big interactive map, rather I was intending to create individual interactive maps for each of those systems (Sounder, the two streetcars, and the monorail). OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
A Sounder map would be helpful; the streetcars and monorail already have their own interactive maps. SounderBruce 04:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done Here you go. Let me know if there's any changes that you'd like to see on it. I made the N Line red and the S Line blue just so readers can tell them apart. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@OrdinaryScarlett: The map looks good; I'll go ahead and change the colors a bit (since blue and red are both used by other transit lines in the region). I think it would be worthwhile to also move the existing monorail and streetcar maps to Commons, though they are in need of some code cleanup. SounderBruce 04:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: Imported both the monorail and streetcar maps to Commons here. You'll have to forgive me for not being knowledgeable enough with coding, so I unfortunately don't have the expertise to help out in code cleanup for now, but hopefully that's half the battle out of the way. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to create a separate page for the "Link Light Rail" rolling stock. This would tidy up the main page and allow more thorough look into the details for those interested 
As the system grows more and more cars will be ordered, with the 1, 2, and T line expansion in a few years I believe this section will soon become crowded making the overall article difficult to navigate.
Hope I can hear y'all's thoughts! matt. (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It might be best to have a general Sound Transit fleet article to also remove some clutter from the Sounder and ST Express articles. I've gone ahead and parked a redirect there, but I do have a draft from a few years ago in my userspace that I can revive. SounderBruce 04:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
that sounds like a really good idea! I'd love to help out :)   matt. (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Same here. Sage or something (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that some of the photos are old, and some lacking quality. Might it be a good idea for me to venture out to Seattle and get more to add and replace old ones?
Sage or something (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to add a section for the 2 line (opening on 27 april, 2024)?
Sage or something (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There already is a subsection that can be merged into the appropriate ones on April 27. SounderBruce 04:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
True. How should that be done?
Sage or something (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi All - I'd like to have a static map of the link light rail system in the page. I think it would be more readable than the geographic map, and would align the Link's wikipedia page to the pages of other similar systems. I am thinking at these maps https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps
It would also be great to use a static map to show each Line individually in their respective sections and page (see Map section of the Paris Line 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_1) 2601:602:9603:AA90:A4F4:2E72:F3ED:D5CE (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sound Transit's maps are copyrighted, so they should not be added. A recreation with distinct elements would be fine, but would need to be updated with the next few rounds of expansion. SounderBruce 05:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello SounderBruce, I noticed you reverted my recent edit with a link added to MOS:CITELEAD. There it states that: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The line I added was neither of the three C's. Moreover the sources is about light rail, and should perfectly reliable when writing about light-rail systems. KatVanHuis (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@KatVanHuis: Light Rail Now is an advocacy group that self-publishes reports and is thus not a reliable source. As for the point about WP:LEADCITE, it is preferred that citations are not added to the lead unless the content they are citing is not present in the body. SounderBruce 05:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello SounderBruce, thank you for your quick reply.
I'm aware that Light Rail Now is an advocacy group, but so is LRTA. The LRTA is a source used across Wikipedia to categorise networks around the world. Both organisations are not private persons who do self publishing. And both are reliable because light rail is their expertise and their only expertise.
Indeed: that makes sense, yet I added content that wasn't cited in the remaining text of the article.
Meanwhile the current claim that Link is a "light rail rapid transit" network, is contradicting. In 1972 the term "light rail" was chosen to distinguish urban rail systems from the ones that are classified as "heavy rail". On Wikipedia the term "rapid transit" was the chosen term to use for these "heavy rail" systems. This makes the first line of the article read: "Link light rail is a light rail heavy rail system serving the Seattle metropolitan area..." Let's try to fix this.
KatVanHuis (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
There is no official authority on how systems are described; it is unclear what your statement about 1972 is referring to, but it really shouldn't apply to something built over 45 years later. I have added some clarification based on Times reporting, but there is no reliable sourcing that describes Link as a semi-metro. SounderBruce 04:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello again SounderBruce and thank you for your efforts.
The main authority is the UITP, but also the UN and national government bodies set boundaries on how to categorise transit systems. Unfortunately, most of this information is not available to the general public. Therefore Wikipedia contributors are using organisations like the APTA, LRTA and LRN (and regularly also UrbanRail.net) to decide which category to apply.
In 1972 the term "light rail" was adopted: and since then it is applicable until further notice. Still up to date: "light rail" ≠ "heavy rail/rapid transit". So I'm glad to see that you made an attempt to fix it.
The local newspaper indeed reported: Seattle’s network is an uncommon hybrid that fans sometimes call “light metro”, but how fans call it should not be leading for an article's lead.
Meanwhile the current first sentence (Link light rail is a light rail system with light metro characteristics that serves the Seattle metropolitan area) is the perfect definition of a semi-metro. Summarised: semi-metro = light rail system with heavy metro/light metro characteristics.
KatVanHuis (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The policy on reliable sources is very clear. Anything objectionable has to have a citation to a reputable outlet. LRN is clearly not, so any definition that is only supported by a nearly 20-year-old blog post is not worth including. SounderBruce 07:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello SounderBruce, indeed the policy on reliable sources is very clear: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgement are an indispensable part of the process." To me it makes sense that members of a light rail advocacy group are experts on light rail systems and have the right background to be able to categorise individual light rail systems. And indeed more so than mainstream journalists.
The policy continues: Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. You can see in the article light metros that the LRTA (a self publishing advocacy group) is chosen often to judge on the classification of systems.
Please be aware that Link doesn't meet the requirements of a "light metro", and that it does meet the requirements of a "semi-metro".
PS: only repeating that something is "clearly not" is hardly helpful. I have explained myself; please explain yourself too as per Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct. KatVanHuis (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Wiki-lawyering is not constructive and accusing other users of incivility is inflammatory behavior. The new source turns up no results on WorldCat (a first, in my experience) and would need to be extremely specific to be used in this situation. Neither of the presented sources would pass muster at GAN or FAC, which is the eventual goal here, and would be removed in the review process anyway. SounderBruce 17:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello SounderBruce, thank you for your quick reply. I will answer each point below.
This is not wiki-lawyering. I'm only reviewing the policy on reliable sources; a policy that was presented to me on this Talk-page.
Then allow me to rephrase my PS: only repeating that something is "clearly not" is hardly helpful. I have explained myself; please explain yourself too as per Wikipedia is the product of millions of editors' contributions.
The new source starts with alternatives of rapid transit; one of these being semi-metro. Another page mentions that semi-metro can be an upgrade of a tram network. Page 46 gives international examples of light rail semi-metros (Seattle being one of them: presented with a photo) but also regular light rail systems. A fourth pages mentions details of the semi-metro concept; mostly pros and cons.
The reviewers of GA-status or FA-status are allowed to review both sources in the near or far future.
KatVanHuis (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The new source seems to lift some information from Wikipedia, and thus might be a case of circular sourcing. It is best that these are avoided, as the origin may be original research. And once again, there are zero mentions of semi-metros in any Seattle-based news archives that I can find, whereas The Seattle Times has repeatedly used "light metro" to describe the characteristics of Link, such as in this comparison between light rail systems in the U.S. One of the core philosophies of sourcing on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; even if you believe something to be wrong, if verifiable and reliable sources disagree then we must follow the latter or exclude this information entirely. SounderBruce 19:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello SounderBruce, I will address each point:
Circular sourcing couldn't have happened as both the Norwegian and the English article on semi-metro are newer than the Ruter report. They only took three images from WP.
Original Research has two definitions: one inside and one outside of Wikipedia. Within WP, OR is research done by our own volunteers.
In this comparison "light metro" is not mentioned a single time. And even if it did, there's no Wikipedia policy that requires sources to be only local.
Fors sure the Link light rail-article can link to the light metro article, but then readers will find out themselves that Link isn't one of them, as it simply lacks an end-to-end independent alignement. Let's fix that by looking and the context, as we are here to improve Wikipedia.
KatVanHuis (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I have yet to see evidence that "semi-metro" is a widely used term in the U.S. transit industry (as required in WP:ENGVAR), whereas "light metro" at least appears in non-industry publications from time to time to describe Link and similar systems. And again, one of the core policies of the English Wikipedia is our adherence to reliable secondary sources; it is not our place, as editors, to force our own definitions or be pedantic to the point of hurting the project (as is happening now). The linked Times article explicitly mentions light metro in the chart, and is not the only use of the term by the Times. A fair compromise would be removing these secondary indicators entirely and just go with the simple, all-encompassing "light rail" and leave it at that. SounderBruce 00:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello again SounderBruce, I will address each of your points:
The advice from WP:ENGVAR is: Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. One example: semi-metro is preferred to the national varieties tram subway (British English) and subway-surface line (American English).
Perhaps "light metro" occasionally appears in non-industry publications, but these lack the expertise to assess that a "light metro" has a completely independent alignement; opposed to "light rail" that is defined to also have an exclusive alignement or sometimes even running in mixed traffic. Light metro is a concept originally coined in the late 20th century by the World Bank to refer to new rapid transit projects in Asia. So far the only proper light metro system in the USA is the Skyline (Honolulu).
How can it be my own definition while it was mentioned as early as 1966 (before I even was born) in the U.S. transit industry? It was included in the "Transportation Research Board Special Report 179, Glossary of Urban Public Transportation Terms" in 1978 and again and afterwards in newer editions. The 1989 edition states: semi-metro–a light rail transit system that uses exclusive right-of-way for much of its length, usually at surface grade but occasionally in tunnels or on aerial structures.
These secondary indicators serve an encyclopedia well, as its sole purpose is to inform readers. Light rail is a too wide of a concept in this case.
KatVanHuis (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
The term "semi-metro" is not used by modern U.S. transit publications, nor is it used by the public at large. It should not appear in this article, which is meant for the general public, not industry specialists, primarily for a U.S. audience. There is no reason to keep pushing this niche term onto the light rail articles on Wikipedia when it flies in the face of NPOV and SYNTH. SounderBruce 16:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Jumping in as a third opinion here… the term "semi-metro" is not used to describe U.S. transit, the term "light metro" is, and does accurately describe the rather unique operation of this line. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
From my understanding, "light metro" describes systems that would otherwise be considered a metro but are smaller in size, like the Docklands Light Railway in London. Medium-capacity rail system, which "light metro" redirects to, has a more thorough breakdown and a list of examples in the US and abroad. The main point is that the term refers to a smaller metro/metro that is light instead of light rail that is like a metro, which is what Link is. In the intro to that article, it says "In contrast with light rail systems, an MCS runs on a fully grade separated exclusive right-of-way." Link has 49 at-grade crossings on the 1 and 2 Lines, and 47 on the T line (per Sound Transit), and as such is nowhere close to fully grade separated. I don't have any opinions on the term "semi-metro", but definitely am opposed to the use of "light metro" in this case. Sbb618 (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said light rail rapid transit (which is what the lede says). Link is unique in that it only has the one primary at-grade section (I think in retrospect, largely considered to be a mistake)… but what makes that section unique is that it has near-total signal preemption, so it’s rare for a train to stop anywhere other than a station. That is quite unique amongst US light rail systems, which often have median running sections that operate more like a streetcar. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello RickyCourtney, light rail expert Vuchic has defined "light rail rapid transit" as rail transit that runs on a grade-separated exclusive right-of-way, end to end. And so the term "light rail rapid transit" fails to describe the operation of any Link line. KatVanHuis (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I like the first sentence as it now stands:
Link light rail is a light rail system with several rapid transit characteristics that serves the Seattle metropolitan area in the U.S. state of Washington.
I think that accurately describes its unique operation. However, I still don't like the second sentence:
With light rail and rapid transit sections combined, it could be classified as a semi-metro system.
I agree with Bruce here, the term "semi-metro" is not used by modern reliable U.S. transit publications, nor is it used by the public at large. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello RickyCourtney, I'm afraid this reaction is less helpful: see WP:JDL KatVanHuis (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
@KatVanHuis are you also aware of Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass or Wikipedia:Let it go? RickyCourtney (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello SounderBruce, I will address each of your points:
I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that our project is about popularity contests; neither which article is created for which specific regional audience.
WP:NPOV states: The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. This why I formulated the article like this: "it could be classified as a semi-metro system." instead of "it is classified as a semi-metro system."
WP:SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Yet, here both sources duplicate one single element stated somewhere in the line of: "Link is a type of semi-metro LRT."
KatVanHuis (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
The policy in question is MOS:NEO; it is about what is used in normal contexts by reliable public sources, not terms that are only specific to those within the industry. We are not in the business of speculation (hence why "could be classified" is problematic) and must reflect the sources available and are generally up-to-date. Once again, I don't think we should be using sources from almost 20 years ago to describe a system that has several current and upcoming sections that were not even in planning at that time. The use of these terms should be discussed at a larger venue, such as WT:TRAINS, rather than in individual articles due to the nature of these changes. SounderBruce 21:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I've made a map of Seattle transit and added it to this page, but I received what I feel is unsourced criticism and unjustified deletions. SounderBruce, whose contributions ae definitely quite valuable, has sought to delete my map twice. First time, it was based on the belief that it doesn't focus on Link, which is a valid concern I'm working to address, and second time that it is not a 'good-quality' map and that it has 'layout errors' and 'width issues'. I feel my map accurately captures the sprawling transit system and, albeit it sacrifices accurate scale for readability, it does a good enough job at providing information to the reader. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is up to one user - no matter how well-knowledgeable and experienced - to decide that no map is better than an imperfect map. Therefore, I call on SounderBruce to allow me to add my map back and provide constructive criticism that is in line with the good-spirit ideas behind Wikipedia.
MapperGuy87 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The article already has two geographic maps (one interactive, one static) and a BSicon diagram. That is sufficient to illustrate the scale of the system and its stations to a reader.
This new map is not clear at thumbnail size and includes too many other non-Link services. Not to mention, the map has several mistakes, namely the order of the Redmond stations, odd curves that don't conform to the actual layout of the system, and non-accurate color choices. If we do need to have another simplified map, it should be something slim enough to fit in the infobox. SounderBruce 22:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
The well-established standard for American transit articles is three maps - one interactive one overlaid on OpenStreetMap, one static one as an .svg and one schematic one with BSIcons. This standard is held up well with Los Angeles's, San Diego's, San Francisco's, Philadelphia's, Salt Lake's City's, Sacramento's, Cleveland's... systems, which all feature at least three articles. If you feel you disagree, I invite you to participate in a public discussion which would seek to back your idea of *not* adding an extra map, albeit I strongly doubt the benefits of such a decision. Right now, it is my opinion against yours, and two people disagreeing hardly makes up a consensus. In the meantime, I will correct the order of the stations, re-color the map to make Link services more visible and look at those 'curves' you pointed out. Also, I would kindly ask you not to delete my map the next time I add it without a prior discussion.
MapperGuy87 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
It's important that a map is made accurate before it is added. A more simplified map without unnecessary snaking turns would be welcome. SounderBruce 04:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
So, I have considered your remarks - especially given there *is* a consensus now, thanks to Reywas92, and I feel this map could be a compromise. It is much simpler and focuses on the link system without the snaking turns, except for parts where they are strictly necessary - for example, at the northern end of Line 2. It's still a work in progress, surely, but I feel that it fits your requirements better than the previous one.

MapperGuy87 (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
The 2 Line will not serve Stadium station and will continue all the way up to Lynnwood. I don't see the point in having that final curve into Lynnwood City Center, as it is not more dramatic than the actual turns on the line further south. I would also caution that consensus requires more than just three users, but this map is a much better start. SounderBruce 19:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! How does it look now? Upload-worthy yet or not? I've fixed the Line 2, streamlined the top part in general, added some connections and worked out the legend and the T section.
MapperGuy87 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
It looks better, but there's still some text clipping issues (International District/Chinatown, the labels for the 2 Line between Bellevue and Overlake), some of the station names have errors (Belred should be BelRed, etc.), the icons don't have centered numerals and don't use the right colors (especially for Sounder), and there's no room to add Pinehurst station (which opens next year). SounderBruce 21:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback! I am certain we will figure it out :3
MapperGuy87 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
A diagram map is vital to the article. Since the official map is likely copyrighted, a map like MapperGuy87's is a great addition here. I think SounderBruce's comments are fair and the map should be updated before it's readded and perhaps made accessible to be changed easily by others, but File:Link light rail geographic map.svg is hard to read without zooming in a lot, the OpenStreetMap isn't also desirable, and the icon diagram in the infobox lacks shape and scale entirely. Having multiple styles of map is standard and important to have. Reywas92Talk 01:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I have some photos I've taken of various Link station art. Would it be appropriate for me to add one before the GA review starts, or no? Don't want to overstep in between the nomination and review. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 05:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sarsenet: Given that sculptures and other artwork is now presumed to be copyrighted, I don't think we should have those images. See this Commons guide for some more information. I do plan on creating a list of Sound Transit artwork at some point, but finding third-party sources is rather difficult. SounderBruce 05:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
@SounderBruce I've read through the guide, but am unsure of how this situation differs from other public art or Link station art like Hot Rat Summer or Jet Kiss. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 21:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Basically, per rules on artwork and sculptures, we really shouldn't have pictures of these works because they were created after 1978. Commons is very picky about copyright; for Jet Kiss, Sound Transit released these specific photos under a compatible license, but it's still in a gray area. SounderBruce 21:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

... that the Link light rail system in Seattle will include the first railway on a floating bridge? Source: The Seattle Times, Bloomberg/CityLab
ALT1: ... that the use of new colors to label Link light rail lines was withdrawn two months after their introduction? Source: The Seattle Times
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Haru Urara (Umamusume), Template:Did you know nominations/Super Robin Hood
Comment: More hooks forthcoming if needed.

SounderBruce 05:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC).

 @SounderBruce: The article satisfies the newness and length criteria; It is very well-sourced, neutral, and I have not detected any plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Both QPQs have been provided. Regarding the hooks:
For the first hook, perhaps you could provide a second source, since it is a superlative hook per WP:DYKHOOKCITE
As for the second hook, it seems to me that red was the only color abandoned after two months. Furthermore, I cannot access the source for the second hook, so I request you to provide a quote. Very interesting read :) -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
@AmateurHi$torian: Added a second source above. For the second hook, all of the lines were affected (see here), but only the Red Line/now 1 Line had undergone rebranding. A relevant quote: "Colors aren’t needed until 2023, when the second line, to be called the Blue Line, opens from International District/Chinatown Station to the Eastside, reaching Bellevue and Overlake. At that point, two lines will overlap from International District/Chinatown Station to Northgate Station." SounderBruce 07:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
 Both sources for the first hook check out. The second source you provided for ALT2 does say that both red and yellow lines were affected and they are going to be referred to as "Link" and "Tacoma link" now. So, ALT1 checks out too. Good to go AmateurHi$torian (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)