Talk:San Joaquins

message: Since the Amtrak California page has added the rolling stocks information, I think it is appropriate to remove the same section from San Joaquins page. These rolling stocks are, after all, not San Joaquins exclusives. --Will74205 05:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest Remove Rolling Stock Section

message: There are actually two Stockton stations used for the San Joaquins - trains from Sacramento use the Stockton (ACE station) (Cabral Station), and trains from Oakland go to the Stockton (Amtrak station).  The route box shows both routes going through the Stockton Amtrak station.  Does it make sense to edit this to show the two different stations, and if so, is there someone more knowledgeable than me who could make the edit?--NapoliRoma (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just rechecked the timetable that's linked as the reference to verify this.  I've updated the routebox appropriately. Slambo (Speak) 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stockton 

message: The route map says "to Los Angeles" at the end, after the Oakland station.  I think this belongs at the beginning, before Bakersfield.--agr (talk)
*I think the author had the Coast Starlight in mind, but that's not even a bookable connection. It definitely shouldn't be before Bakersfield though, since it doesn't run there in scheduled service. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on San Joaquin (train). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131105095505/http://www.acerail.com/About/Regional-Governance-for-San-Joaquin-Rail-Service/Previous-SJJPA-Board-Meetings/Complete-SJJPA-May-2013-Packet.pdf to http://www.acerail.com/About/Regional-Governance-for-San-Joaquin-Rail-Service/Previous-SJJPA-Board-Meetings/Complete-SJJPA-May-2013-Packet.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131024214436/http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Alert_C&pagename=am/AM_Alert_C/Alerts_Popup&cid=1251624886764 to http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Alert_C&pagename=am/AM_Alert_C/Alerts_Popup&cid=1251624886764
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't believe that it's worth including a logo in this article, for several reasons. One, that logo does not appear to be in use any longer - I cannot find it in use anywhere but Wikipedia. Two, it doesn't add any encyclopediac value to the article. Per WP:LOGOS:  For trains, however, the primary identifier/portrait is a photograph of the train itself; the logo is of secondary importance and does not need to be at the very top of the infobox. The fact that Amtrak schedules, route website, and twitter all use different logos underscores the non-importance of the logo. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair point that the primary identifier is a photograph of the train itself. I do feel like mentioning that if you feel this way about this article, this should be a greater discussion about logos on all of the Amtrak train pages (with the possible exception of the Acela). I also feel like pointing out that the San Joaquin logo (albeit various versions with/without the slogan) have been appearing in more places including the timetable, cafe car menu, twitter and station signage. In short, I don't feel strongly that we need to keep it, but I do feel strongly that there needs to be a consistent approach across all of the Amtrak train pages. --RickyCourtney (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Since @‎Endrias Kassa reverted my edits, I'd like to start the discussion over if it's okay to simply say that the San Joaquins travel to "Oakland" in the infobox instead of "Oakland–Jack London Square." Yes, there are two stations in Oakland, but I don't think there's a real danger of our readers confusing the two, especially since they can simply click or hover over the link for clarification. Furthermore, in infoboxes, brevity is important. They are meant to be quick, consise summaries, not complete and total explinations (that's what the aricle is for). Thoughts? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but you'd have to change it for all the stations that lead to Oakland-Jack London square in the boxes. Endrias Kassa (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that's what I had done before you reverted my changes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with just saying "Oakland" as the destination since this is clearly the main Oakland station. (The Emeryville station infobox can use the full name since it's actually the adjacent station there.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Done. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brevity in infoboxes