Talk:Sacramento Regional Transit District

message: Frequency of service on light rail is not uniform end-to-end; the article seems to imply this. Jim 21:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Service Frequency

message: Anyone plan to create articles for the lines themselves?? If so:
#Link them from here as appropriate
#Put them in the dis-ambiguation pages Blue Line and Yellow Line (for the former, someone already linked to the section of the article with the line.) Georgia guy 23:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for lines themselves 

message: The 39th and 48th Street stations were not opened in 1987.  They didn't come until much later, though I don't remember which year offhand.
*IIRC, those stations opened sometime in the early or mid 90's, definitely no later than 1996... Ranma9617 06:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stations along Folsom route 

message: While the individual stations are linked, I don't think they really should be, because they mostly have little potential for articles. Unlike BART stations, for instance, many RT stations are unstaffed stops without much of note. Twinxor t 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks on stations 

message: I disagree.  I noticed on several other transit authority articles on wikipedia that have every single article for each station (i.e. heavy rail or light rail) regardless of whether it has very little or a lot of info about each one.  Aside from that, I managed to finish creating articles for each station, now the next project is for both the Blue Line and Gold Line of the RT to have their own articles.
GETONERD84 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station articles finished 

message: I didn't plan to create a dedicated category, but since some individual light rail station articles have been created by others, I ended up creating a dedicated RT category so the station articles feel less orphaned... Ranma9617 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Own category 

message: There has been some confusion on this addition. I noticed that construction began several weeks agao, months ahead of schedule. I have added a section on this and will be adding images momentarily.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.166 (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Meadowview to Consumnes River College light rail extension 

message: I mentioned it because this system has an info box, several routes, and is mentioned as being the 10th busiest in the nation. Will (Talk - contribs) 12:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to be fair enough to write a new article. I am removing the split tag because the section as it stands would not make the article viable. IJBall (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I personally feel that the light rail system does merit its own separate article. FWIW... --IJBall (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light rail new article discussion 

message: While doing some research at the recorder's office, I found that a downtown parcel (1114 E Street, APN: 002-0116-006-0000), which hosts a light rail power substation, is owned by the subject agency. How does this agency fit in with RT? Does it still exist and should it be mentioned in the history of RT? CampKohler (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacramento Transit Development Agency 

message: History - "RT plans to extend light rail beyond Meadowview in South Sacremento to Cosumnes River College" - it has been extended.
Blue Line extension project - "are component in" should be "were components of".
69.72.92.235 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  outdated wording 

message: Article is hanging on source information nearly 10 years old. This article needs some serious updates! There have been much more reported incidents since 2010, the blue line extension to CRC (on the light rail) has been completed (aside from one station in the middle), among other major updates that are well sourced. I cannot add the template to add to the article to flag it as out of date. 134.186.234.108 (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I discovered a template, unsure if I added it appropriately 134.186.234.108 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs update 

message: From the intro: "It is currently the sixteenth busiest light rail system in the United States.[3]"
From the Light Rail section: "Sacramento's light rail system, with an average of 48,400 weekday daily boardings in Q1 2013,[3] is the eleventh busiest in the United States. "
Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  11th or 16th? 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20090511181506/http://www.sacrt.com:80/rthistory.stm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Tuckertwo (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed