Talk:Metro Blue Line (Minnesota)

message: I have reverted a major deletion that was done to this article.  Some anonymous person, without explanation, just deleted the whole section about deaths on the Hiawatha Line.  That's been here for a long time, and revised or corrected several times.
If someone thinks there is some reason this section should be removed from this article, they they should explain why here, and see what the responses from other people are.  That's the way things are properly done on Wikipedia. T-bonham (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This vandal deleted the whole section again, still without giving any reason or posting on the talk page.  Just after it had been updated with new information.  Wish I knew what the problem was. T-bonham (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I already removed the part about the woman hit by a bus (NOT A LRT!), and I think the whole section should go. Firstly, because pedestrians hit by rail vehicles are a dime a dozen, sorry to say, so there's nothing particularly notable about these incidents. Secondly, the way they are phrased (especially the one about the lady hit by the bus) they appear to push a POV that the light rail is somehow dangerous, and therefore bad. It's a case of POV-pushing by light rail opponents, it seems, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. And even if not, it is an example of undue weight, as it is a full section of a rather short article. oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know why there was a separate deaths section, perhaps this being the first LRT line in the Twin Cities anything unusual would get special focus. I added the woman's death because the bus was turning into the service area for light rail passengers, and because that marked the 3rd death at the 46th Street station. I drive by there every morning and I've used it several times so I'm familiar with it, and have had a bus driver volunteer without prompting that he thought the station was poorly designed (although being Original Research that can not  be used, of course). I support light rail - love it, actually, ever since my first trip to D.C. - but I suppose there could be some POV-pushing because I don't think people are taking the risk seriously around that station for whatever reason. The platform area itself is fairly secure but the zone surrounding it seems to have some issues. Much busier stations such as Ft Snelling and MOA seem to not have that problem, nor have there been any deaths downtown despite the increased pedestian traffic and the comensurate difficulty in separating pedestrians from the LRT. Anyways, I'll go with the consensus and not try to put it back in (maybe a section on safety would be appropriate but I won't crusade for it)Haverberg (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained deletions undone 

message: This article seems rather outdated.  Much of it reads like it was written several years ago, talking about things in future tense.  
Also, the article seems to downplay the success of the LRT.  It only gives a bland statement of the number of annual passengers, and never says that the ridership is double or triple the original projections, or that the county has had to buy additional trains to meet the demand.  Nor does it mention that the public acceptance has led to political pressure for more lines, with various areas wanting a line thru their neighborhood.
T-bonham 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated 

message: This is one of those times when I must admit to a microscopic regret for Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, as I'd love to put in some remarks about the poor design of the stations.  While they do have shelters, they are small and provide little protection from the elements.  Furthermore, roofs over passenger areas are typically so high that unless precipitation is falling perfectly straight down, it has plenty of time to angle under the roof and soak waiting passengers.
You'd think that, given Minneapolis' notoriously foul winter weather, someone would have planned for that.
*sigh*
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stations 

message: Humphrey station is now open again, so the map is outdated. Can someone change this? I'm not sure how, but I think it looks bad to have the old info on here now. Mullibok 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map now incorrect 

message: Someone changed the article names from Station name (Hiawatha Line station) to Station name (MNMT station). I guess I can understand why someone might want to change the name (e.g. the stations downtown won't just be part of the Hiawatha Line anymore when the Central Corridor LRT is complete), but NOBODY uses the "MNMT" abreviation in real life. Could we change this to Station name (Metro Transit station), perhaps? I realize there are other public transit agencies out there using the Metro Transit name, but the agency in the Twin Cities is the only one operating a rail system at this time (the LRT being built in Seattle right now will be operated by Sound Transit, NOT Metro Transit (King County), so there shouldn't be any issues there). I'd like to have some sort of discussion before going ahead and changing it myself. Eco84 | Talk 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as MNMT is defined nowhere in any article I can find, I think some change is definitely in order. Mullibok 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name changes on articles for LRT stations 

message: Anyone else vote for changing the picture in the infobox?  It seems really dated, given I haven't seen a one-car train in forever, and makes the Hiawatha line seem a lot more like a streetcar line than it is.  Thoughts? Jrt989 (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox picture 

message: There has been some debate about the "Deaths" section of this article. I 100% agree with the editors who keep putting it back when deleted without consensus. That said, I'm unconvinced that this is appropriate here.
* Comparable information is not generally included in similar articles (which would make inclusion a standard)
* There is no suggestion that this line is more dangerous than other comparable lines (which would make the information notable)
* No context is offered to explain why the data is relevant or meaningful (which would make it useful)
Traffic accidents are no surprise, and are not notable in themselves. By simply including this information without meaningful context, we create the impression that this line (or LRT in general) is unsafe. If the article is going to say that, then we should document that and say so. If not, we should stay clear of this list.
Thoughts? Uberhill 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the revert; I still think it should all go, but WITH consensus. I'm afraid I still disagree. Barring some assertion that this LRT line is somehow different, I fail to see how this is relevant. Compelling, perhaps, but not appropiate here. Perhaps an article on LRT or transit safety would be in order?  Uberhill 02:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

text: *Our IP friend has reinserted the section, which I have removed.  The editor also reinserted another a section, on early signalling problems, which I removed.  There were no references despite the presence of an unreferenced template on the section for two years.  Those signalling problems are no longer an issue.  The article is not a blog reporting on current events, but rather an encylopedia article.  If the early signalling problems merit a mention, it should be short, cited, and should also report current status.  Kablammo (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Added again by an IP, and deleted again.  My note to the IP is here.  Kablammo (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths Section 

message: Last I heard late last year, for every ticket purchased to ride the light-rail, Metrotransit lost $12 and some cents.  This is an important issue, and should be listed in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.173.131 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If true, and verifiable, yes.  Got a source? Uberhill 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 17 June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Suvplustrain.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: We need to be consistent with line names.  I know Metro Council has approved the new line colors as the new names for lines, but *EVERYTHING* in the Twin Cities still currently references this as the Hiawatha Line.  Randomly replacing references to "Hiawatha Line" with "Blue Line" is confusing for no good reason; its primary name is still "Hiawatha Line" at this time, since although Metro Council has approved the change, it has not been accomplished yet.  At the moment I think it would be most appropriate to reference the line as "Hiawatha Line (Blue Line)", and to switch that to "Blue Line (Hiawatha Line)" once the signs on the line are switched.  Opinions?
Talindsay (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not move this page without discussion. I see no evidence the common name has changed. Jonathunder (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The route number changed from 55 to 901 when the service was officially renamed from "Hiawatha Line" to "Blue Line" in 2013. —Mulad (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line Names 

message: An image used in this article, File:Hiawatha openining023a.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hiawatha openining023a.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Substituted at 05:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Metro Blue Line (Minnesota). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214014738/http://www.metrotransit.org/facts-about-trains-and-construction.aspx to http://www.metrotransit.org/facts-about-trains-and-construction.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807233244/http://www.metrocouncil.org/newsletter/transit2011/TransitLineColorsJuly.htm to http://www.metrocouncil.org/newsletter/transit2011/TransitLineColorsJuly.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Metro Blue Line (Minnesota). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metrotransit.org/facts-about-trains-and-construction.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metrocouncil.org/newsletter/transit2011/TransitLineColorsJuly.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008031659/http://southwesttransitway.org/minneapolis-detail-map.html to http://www.southwesttransitway.org/minneapolis-detail-map.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011062726/http://community-wealth.org/_pdfs/articles-publications/tod/article-newberg.pdf to http://community-wealth.org/_pdfs/articles-publications/tod/article-newberg.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720092240/http://it.umn.edu/news/inventing/2004_Summer/righttrack.html to http://www.it.umn.edu/news/inventing/2004_Summer/righttrack.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518205925/http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/04/central_corridor_federal_funding.php to http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/04/central_corridor_federal_funding.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930074617/http://www.magconline.org/PDF/2013_MAGC_NL_Results.pdf to http://www.magconline.org/PDF/2013_MAGC_NL_Results.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metro Blue Line (Minnesota). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426171325/http://www.metrotransit.org/facts-about-trains-and-construction.aspx to http://metrotransit.org/facts-about-trains-and-construction.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)