Talk:Washington Metro/Archive 2

message: Does anyone know what the length of each line is?  I'm suprised this piece(s) of data is not included in either the main article or individual line pages or at least missing for some of them, it would sure help bring the article and or pages up to featured artcle standard.  Also the bit of information would help in creating a new table for the lines. Limitedexpresstrain 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line lengths 

message: I'm just wondering why someone edited out the sentence, "The previous recordholding day was January 20, 1993, President Bill Clinton's first inauguration" in the history section.  It seems like something that should be discussed.
Mecaterpillar 16:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, so I reverted the edit and put it back in.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous Highest Ridership Day 

message: Under the Accountability and Controversy section in the main page, it states that the new, cashless parking system requires users to buy a SmarTrip card to exit.  This is true, but the wording is somewhat misleading.  SmarTrip cards cost $5, but the minimum you can put on one is $5, for a total minimum spent of $10.  The math is right that they pay $7.50 extra, but perhaps we can reword this to say that they are forced to pay a nonrefundable $5 for the SmarTrip-the rest of the $5 can be used for parking, even if they will only feasibly use it once.--Rmeskill 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tweaked language --Brian H 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue With The Main Page 

message: An extension to Ft. Belvoir has been studied before http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/19/AR2005051901618.html, either as a light rail extension or Metrorail,  lately with the new BRAC realignment expected to move 18000 jobs to Ft. Belvoir by 2012 new interest has been place on this possible extension.   Sorry for not signing it earlier, I added two sections at once. --JVittes 03:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Extensions 

message: Such an interesting article recently removed as a reference.  I'd hate to see it go to waste:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901738.html
I don't want to lose the address for it in the shuffle of things, so here it is.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carpet/seats article 

message: I'm thinking that this trivia bit should be sourced just as everything else should be and since it's not currently, it should have a "[citation needed]" appearing at the end. Also shouldn't it say "pass from one car to the next" or something like that?  "pass between cars" sounds, at least to me, like one is passing from being outside on one side of the train to being outside on the other side of the train by passing between the cars.  At least on other contexts, I believe, it would imply something like that.  For example, if a driver of a vehicle was passing between cars I would think it would mean driving the vehicle between two cars while to change from one car to the next would be described in language similar to what I just used. Mecaterpillar 05:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a picture of the current sign be enough documentation?  I can snap one on the way home.  I linked to a Metro flash animation as a citation for the trivia, but somebody deleted it. --Brian H 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I don't know what problem, if any, there was with the link to the flash animation.  A picture, however, seems kind of excessive for just a simple trivia item.  Ultimately, I don't know how best to provide a source for this.  If there were some webpage with this little nugget of information in it, that could work. Mecaterpillar 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia bit about passing "between cars" 

message: I'm noticing lately that there's been information that keeps being added to the article.  That's fine, it's just that it seems to me that almost every time information is added, the person adding it forgets to cite their source.  This is problematic.  It can be difficult and time consuming for the rest of us to go hunt down a source for information that someone else added.  It'd be much easier for all of us, if in the future, when anyone adds new piece of information to the article, for them to cite their source at the same time.
In the meantime there is quite a bit of information now for which a citation is needed.  Would some of you like to help hunt down sources?  Mecaterpillar 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions of uncited info 

message: Is the depth and expansive size of the Metro stations in any way attributable to their possible use as bomb shelters? Just wondering. --RevWaldo 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No blast protection on entrances or vent shafts. Metro was designed at the height of the cold war and "mutually assured destruction" likely made any shelter capibility politically incorrect.  However on the otherside, Moscow was designed for bomb protection and is much deeper than the Metro with blast doors. --Brian H 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb shelter? 

message: I remember a reference to the No food or drink policy on the Metro. Can a link to that article be added to this one? --Ancheta Wis 09:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the section, with copyedits to shorten it.  The "no food and drink" policy, along with the restroom policy, and the relatively low level of crime in the Metro system are all important things that visitors tend to notice and what distinguishes Metro from other subway systems. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That language had been moved to the MTPD subsection.--Brian H 14:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found it.  However, I consider these as major facts/details about Metro that should be included in the main article, per featured article criteria (2b).  And, I'm not sure the MTPD article is the best place for these topics, as issues of policy and crime go beyond the police agency. The low level of crime has more to do with the architecture and design of the stations, than the police (which most transit agencies have). And, I'm not sure what the police have to do with the restroom policy?  Though, discussion of police enforcement of policies is definitely appropriate for the MTPD article. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just trying to avoid redundant text.  Perhaps a further reduction to "The Metro Transit Police are responsible for enforcing Metro's no eating and drinking policy." and a direct link to the sub article.--Brian H 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand the leaning toward brevity, but agree w/ Aude. Newcomers to the system do notice, and it makes an impression -- I've seen tourists mention it in stations and on trains.  Plus, to mention personal experience: (1) enforcement of it is leaps and bounds above that of similar policies on MARTA and the Chicago 'L', where riders pretty much ignore it (and where you've certainly never heard of someone arrested for it); and (2) it's a heck of a lot stricter than policies in places where agencies have pretty much given up, like the London Underground, for instance, where they merely ask (w/o any legal requirement) riders not to eat 'smelly food.' --GGreeneVa 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Safety and security" section now has a "Rules and regulations" subsection and so I'm thinking that the section title is no longer appropriate and ought to be changed to something else.  I don't see what's discussed in the "Rules and regulations" subsection as having to do with either safety or security.  It has more to do with the maintenance, cleanliness and image of the system.  As such I think the section should be retitled to something that would logically include what is discussed in that subsection.  I personally can't come up with a title that I like, so I figured I'd bring it up for discussion here.  Mecaterpillar 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took your suggestion and ran with it.  The design issue has now more detailed and the no eating/drinking (I am going to add smoking) rule has been explained a bit more.  I moved some text to make the flow more about a historical perspective than just pointing out the faux pas of locking people up for eating.  Also, updated restroom policy with a cite.--Brian H 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  changed phrase in excellent editting by GGreeneVa from "maintenance of order" to "order maintenance."  Order maintence is a specific term used in criminal justice theory see:Example of current research The whole shool of thought directly relates to the "broken windows" concept cited in article. --Brian H 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No food or drink 

message: I wonder if there is some source that could provide information on the farecards similar to the information in the Bay Area Rapid Transit article regarding their farecards.  Also it would also be nice if we could have a photo of a farecard similar to the one on that article.  I think the fact that the balance is printed on the card should also be noted because while some sytems do put it on there, like BART, some don't, like MBTA (which I find quite annoying, BTW).  (Then again, BART, like Metro, has variable fares while MBTA has fixed fares so in the latter you only have to keep track, in your head, of how many trips you've already made) Mecaterpillar 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I read somewhere that both agencies used the same contractor to make the farecard systems, and that at one point one could use the BART cards on Metro and visa-versa, though I didn't quite trust the source, maybe I can find something on this. --JVittes 04:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farecards 

message: Call me pedantic or a bore, but does the length of cars on the NYC subway and the locking or unlocking of end doors merit a full paragraph in an article on the Washington Metro? Let me throw it out to everyone here rather than reverting it again myself, but I just don't see the editorial relevance -- for this subject, that information makes very little difference. --GGreeneVa 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. let's take it out. --Awiseman 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: locking of doors on [[New York City Subway|NYC Subway]]-- 

message: I'm not sure of the accuracy of the following (unsourced) statement in the "Funding" section: "Washington Metro is unique among major public transportation systems in having no dedicated source of funding."
I guess it depends on your definition of the word "major", but the Lynx system in Orlando, Florida, for example, also has no dedicated source of funding. I'm sure there are others.
If the Metro system is the largest in the US without dedicated funding, it seems to me that we could correct this by simply changing it to "Washington Metro is unique in that it is the largest public transportation system in the United States that has no dedicated source of funding" (or something similar that scans better). In any event, at the very least this claim needs a citation.
DBowie 19:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dedicated funding 

message: In addition to Huntington, Union Station uses none of the letters in Mackerel.
mathewbrooks@gmail.com 71.114.108.69 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I still consider the whole "mackerel" bit to be a really dumb bit of trivia to the point of being irrelevant, but it seems that it's here to stay, so I'll modify accordingly.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as it turns out that it's not in the main Washington Metro article anymore anyway.  Good deal.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm, there's an "A" in both Union Station and Mackerel. --Millbrooky 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse my stupidity.  I must have read it five times before i posted.  :)
MathewBrooks 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, color me unobservant as well.  Still, though, I agree with AWiseman about its lack of merit for inclusion, rendering it a moot point.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you're right. I didn't think it was notable at all if two stations didn't, but it still seems kind of silly to include. I say leave it out --AW 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination: lighten up and include it. The 'mackerel' game is a fun bit of word-gaming and subway lore -- the St. John's Wood puzzle from London has stumped people for years, admittedly myself among them -- and it's good for at least a chuckle. Nothing wrong with that. —GGreeneVa 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it's good for a chuckle, but is it notable? Maybe the game in London is, but I've never heard anything about it in DC. And why mackerel? Why not avocado or toothpaste or any other word? --AW 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? That's a bit of a 'why do birds sing' question — I'm not sure there's a way to respond, other than with a Scooby Doo "hunh?!" But as a fun fact, it's gained enough notice on its own strange merits to get attention here on Wikipedia — note the other word games in the latter article — and elsewhere (see here, here, here and here]). —GGreeneVa 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I said, it may be notable in London, but I'm not sure it is in DC --AW 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the "a" in "Union Station", I'm pretty sure that the "station" is excluded from the letters.  Otherwise, both  Huntington Station and St John's Wood Tube Station would not meet the criteria.  As for whether or not to include it in Wikipedia: do I think it's notable?  No.  Do I think we could include it in Wikipedia?  A case could be made for it -- besides, the great thing about Wikipedia is that we're not particularly bound by any costs typically associated with hardcopy encyclopedias.  However, I ultimately think it's more of a regional thing best applied to English transport; not so much for metro DC.  I don't mean to be anti-trivia, but I feel it's just a slippery slope to a whole list of "this station doesn't have any letters of this word". --Thisisbossi 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sticking my oar in..."Union Station" is the name of the station, as it's named after the railway station of the same name.  So technically, it's "the Union Station station"...which is why I'd just call it "the Union Station stop". --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the elevator lady just says "Union Station", and so does the street pylon.  Though it would be amusing for the elevator lady to say, "Welcome to the Union Station station.  Please give priority..." (you get the point)  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia "Mackerel" 

message: Changed from "Chief Justice of the US" to "Chief Justice".  The context of the country is obvious, last time I checked, DC was in the US.martianlostinspace 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not gonna RV, but I used the full title to distinguish his role from those of, say, the 40-plus state supreme court chief justices -- and also to help less court-savvy readers who might know less about the federal bench, and not realize that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has no 'chief justice.' Those five words are a small price to pay for making it clear, y'know? —GGreeneVa 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but I would use "U.S. Chief Justice" for stylistic and length purposes.  Surely that's a compromise that we could agree on, since it would still make the point but also only add four characters in the process.  Beginning 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That can work -- wait for more input, or would you rather just go for it? —GGreeneVa 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Justice Link 

message: This page needs a new subway map showing the yellow line extension and the extension also needs to be reflected in the approriate articles.jtowns 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Green Line (Washington Metro) and Yellow Line (Washington Metro) are already up to date.  The map does need an update, and I seem to be the logical one to do it, since I designed it originally.  The station pages for E02, E03, E04, E05, and E06 should be adjusted to be Green/Yellow stations, since station signage indicates things that way already.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Big map updated.  Line-specific maps are still not up to date.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New maps & updates for yellow line extension of service 

message: Some 'discussion' of a potential need for a Disambiguation page has been included in recent edit summaries. Do others have a strong belief as to whether such a page is needed for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavidb (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 January 2007
:I do not believe that a disambig is necessary, though personally I prefer having the breaks.  Is there a formatting policy indicating that we should not use breaks, or is there a policy which sets a recommended amount of dablinks before creating a disambig? --Thisisbossi 11:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at WP:DAB, and it says "several" before creating a dab page.  I also looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), and they do not give any guidelines about when to jump or how to format dab links in articles.  Best I could find is templates.  My reasoning for disliking the split-into-lines dab is that no one else that I can find does it as a top link, and it makes it look too long.  Top-page disambiguations are supposed to be short and sweet.  If it gets too long, then it's time to create the separate page.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: What does this mean: "Farecards, unlike other forms of payment on Metrorail, are intended to be used once per trip"? Aren't farecards, just like all other forms of payment, used twice per trip?  --dm (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he/she meant "used by one passenger at a time." Upon entering the system, a passenger has to keep the card to himself until he exits; he can't, say, give the card to his friend who never rides Metro to enter right behind him. That would make the faregate balk. —GGreeneVa 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once per trip? 

message: Regarding the currently ongoing reversion war: discuss it here and stop with the ongoing discussion-by-undo. --Thisisbossi 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing to discuss, we have been thoroughly insulted by the person and he has yet to justify his change, whereas we have gone out of our way to be civil and justify our reverts. The onus is entirely on him. --Golbez 12:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Bottom line is that the link doesn't add anything new to the article.  NYCsubway.org is already listed as a link, and we have a more detailed and up to date track map already linked.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup -- and aside from that, have we demonstrated that the track map -- which is still available to the public, clearly -- was withdrawn from NYCSubway.org because of September 11? Seems like there's a correlation ≠ causation fallacy at work here; without establishing the reasons for the removal of that track map, it would make about as much sense to put up a route map with an unfinished Green Line, and say that Metro took that map down after September 11. --GGreeneVa 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to pile on, but the linked maps are out of date.  The green line was extended beyond the Anacostia Station prior to 9/11/01 (January 13th 2001 to be exact, not to mention the subsequent "Largo extention"), so the map was out of date "pre-9/11".  None of the maps contain any information not available currently on Metro's own website.  But I may be a moron, so what do I know. ;) --Brian H 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My understanding about the track map on nycsubway.org is that WMATA contacted the site and asked that it be removed, citing "security" as their reason.  The site complied with the request.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Total bunk, and we can safely ignore the WMATA, but either way, don't we already have a better map linked than the one available on archive.org? --Golbez 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain what you mean by "we can safely ignore the WMATA"?  A substantive argument why increased information is, or is not, detrimental to security would be preferable.  69.140.164.142 04:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that our friend has so generously pointed out which map he refers to, what do y'all think? It is more readable than the more technical one, BUT it's also very out of date. --Golbez 03:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's stay with the technical one.  It has more information on it, and is more up to date.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive.org Website 

message: I removed this, because we can't say there are "two planned lines" - one is planned and real, the other is still a proposal, vaporous, in the air and subject to massive changes. We don't even know what the stations are. I suggest the Purple line be given a mention in the text, but no 'official' recognition. --Golbez 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It may also be possible that the Purple Line may not ultimately be maintained by WMATA, technically questioning its placement within the Washington Metro clan despite its obvious relationships to the system.  The Purple Line is an important thing worth mentioning, but yes: I don't think it should be a particularly prominent path quite yet. ...of course, if I read this again on another day, I'll probably have a completely opposite opinion :P  --Thisisbossi 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also agreed. --StuffOfInterest 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple line in template 

message: what distinguishes a "transfer" station from one which simply serves multiple lines? Pentagon, for example is labeled a transfer station, serving blue and yellow, but Pentagon city is not, even though it serves the same lines. Is the desgination of a "transfer" station only applied to the first and last stations with the oppurtunities to change trains? Is it applied to those which offer bus connections? --YbborT 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official WMATA definition is those stations where lines cross or converge/diverge, probably because extra track infrastructure is needed, and because it's your "last/first chance" to switch lines.  --Golbez 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Transfer Station? 

message: For a discussion on the name of this article, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro#Should Washington Metro be renamed to Metrorail (Washington, D.C.)? --NE2 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Metro or Metrorail? 

message: I expanded the boxes out to deal with them being slammed to the side of the page and the resulting giant whitespace. Feel free to change to back it was intentional to have giant whitespace and small boxes. Just trying to remove giant whitespaces in the article. Amazingracer 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the Boxes 

message: I reverted the closure of the gap under the infobox only, as having that gap gives the infobox some space around it, which does what I consider a good service to the box and to the images by having them start in the next section.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap under infobox 

message: I was inspired by an animation I made being on the main page, so I whipped this up.
Obviously it's a bit raw, as names need work, and there's no transfer station dots, but any comments? I was thinking maybe only show the names of stations as they are added; that would kill all of the horrible clutter as the network grows. Also please point out any errors I made. --Golbez 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as chronology goes, I think you've got it.  As far as station names go, I guess you could remove them as the growth progresses.  However, you might want to think about at least having the outlines of the completed system in place from the beginning, and then filling it in as the system grows.  That would emphasize the fact that except for three stations (New York Avenue, Morgan, Largo), it was all planned like that from the get-go.  Then the names could stay static from the beginning and we could just watch the lines fill in with dots.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks pretty cool. I agree with SchuminWeb having the outline of the current system on the map from the get go would be nice. And also if the dates being displayed were a little bigger. Other than that nice work. Amazingracer 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dates are just a placeholder; rough draft and all. I'm not sure how well having the outline will work, if I do it that will be the last thing I try, I'll try a few other things first. --Golbez 20:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If not an outline, you might want to try /// on the incomplete sections like Metro did.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Orange line went to National Airport from 1978-1979. Aside from that, that's really good. --Jnelson09 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't I show that? :) --Golbez 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, geez, my bad. --Jnelson09 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation 

message: :Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg 

message: I can't seem to get anyone's attention: On the scale map, Forest Glen and Silver Spring are swapped. I would fix it, but I don't have the right software. --Jnelson09 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  By the way, Inkscape is a good free SVG-editing program.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, man. --Jnelson09 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale map 

message: Should we include something in here about the fires that have come about in these last few days?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fires? 

message: This was originally brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro, and Golbez suggested that I bring this up here as well to give it a wider audience, considering this went nearly a month without comment.  The original message was:
Your thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The parenthetical "BART station" identifier makes sense because that's the common grouping by which BART riders and area residents refer to them.  Metrorail riders refer to their stations collectively as "Metro stations" however, and not "WMATA stations". In a broader context, "Metro" alone is not specific to the Washington rail service, so "Washington Metro" is appropriate. As such, I'm opposed to a mass-renaming of the station pages.  —Adavidb 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm netural, but overall don't think it's worht the effort. Would we have a bot running this? And there'd be work afterwards cleaning up all the resulting double redirects, dab pages, and the like. I would also add that making the city explicit in the title makes it marginally clearer for readers exactly what they're looking at, and where they're linking to. But then again, most other articles get along fine without that type of stuff. For the sake of clarity, i'm netural, leaning towards oppose. some might argu this is a case of use common names.--YbborTalk 00:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ybbor summed up my opinion: I'm neutral on the subject, but it would be quite a bit of work for something that is marginally warranted.  I'd be curious how Purple Line would fit in if it ends up MTA-funded rather than WMATA, albeit popularly considered part of the Washington Metro. In that case, it seems like "Washington Metro" would be more appropriate. The DC-MD-VA hodgepodge of jurisdictions means that what's "Metro" may not always be WMATA. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename of station pages? 

message: This article is lacking a pretty essential number: the annual budget number for the Metro system.  does anyone have it?
Benwetmore 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not offhand, but considering Metro is a public agency, it shouldn't be that hard to get.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did a quick Google, since I've been staring at transit budgets these past several nights (albeit in PA and NJ).  This is a Powerpoint turned .pdf, but somebody might be able to pull something out of there.  I'm sure WMATA has some better info hidden in the deep dark depths of bureaucratic webspace. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget? 

message: Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro:
----
There is a great deal of inconsistencies among abbreviations in the titles of station names.  According to the project's main page, it states that articles should be named "exactly as [they are] written on the official Metro system map."  The problem with that is the fact that many of the abbreviations on map are present just to save space, but aren't exactly necessary.  For example, McPherson Square (Washington Metro) is listed as "McPherson Sq" on the map, but is not abbreviated its article "McPherson Square."  Also, both Minnesota Ave and Eisenhower Ave are abbreviated on the map, but the article titles are Minnesota Ave (Washington Metro) and Eisenhower Avenue (Washington Metro), respectively.  Words such "Memorial" shouldn't need to be abbreviated, such as Archives-Navy Mem'l-Penn Quarter (Washington Metro), as opposed to Archives-Navy Memorial-Penn Quarter (Washington Metro).  With the exception of acronyms such as VT, AU, CUA, etc., I think that words should be spelled out in full for consistency reasons.  In addition, endashes (–) should replace all the hyphens (-) in the article titles as well. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have some points, though I disagree with using dashes (which most people cannot type) in article titles. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Users can still use hyphens instead of dashes to get to the article because the title with hyphens can redirect to the title with dashes.  This has been done to many metro station articles, including every New York City Subway station article with dashes.  Dashes are allowed in article titles as long as there are redirects from a hyphened title.  This is explained at WP:DASH. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: About to be copied.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion in progress re: Station pages 

message: The System Map does not show the Metro Center station!
For correct map, see, e.g.: http://www.wmata.com/metrorail/systemmap.cfm
208.54.95.88 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and added the bullseye for Metro Center.  However, someone more skilled in Inkscape than myself needs to go in and fix spelling errors for Rhode Island Avenue, Takoma, and Largo Town Center.  Additionally, there is a missing hyphen in "Franconia-Springfield", and the "U" in "AU" needs to be capitalized on Tenleytown-AU.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with System Map 

message: I'm going to stop reverting and bring this here. I don't know how common derailments are, but compared to the other incidents, which were fatal or had injuries or closed stations down for days, this one seems minor and not entirely worthy of mention. Any thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that a good criterion for inclusion is if the NTSB has sent investigators to the scene.  The agency doesn't investigate incidents unless there is a significant property loss or a death.  If there is no NTSB investigation, it's a minor incident, and IMO could be excluded from mention.  Slambo (Speak) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  And per , the NTSB is not conducting its own investigation, relegating this to "minor" status.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derailment 

message: * 
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  News article for consideration 

message: I want to reopen the discussion on whether to include links to infrastructure information that has been taken down by various site owners but is archived.  Is this information detrimental to security?  Why or why not?  Has WMATA expressed an official position on this?  If WMATA ever suggested that the information be taken down for security reasons, then we should respect that request unless it was illegal.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, such information is NOT detrimental to security, whether WMATA thinks it is or not.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive.org Website 

message: One thing that isn't mentioned here is the issue of frequent name changes Metro made. This was in part due to politics, part due to Metro's willingness to change names as long as the sponsor covered the related costs (which, as I recall, were about $50,000 in the late 1980s). This resulted in some real mouthfuls such as Archive station becoming "Archives–Navy Memorial–Penn Quarter". While there are a few parallels in other systems, the phenomenenon on this scale is confined to WMATA, and flies in the face of the rule of thumb used in most places that station names should be concise and stable (London has "Westminster", not, say, "Westminster-Houses of Parliament-Cenotaph-London Eye", despite the importance of nearby sites). ProhibitOnions (T) 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article for National Airport station does discuss its early-2000's renaming, and how Congress forced the name change on Metro.  There is, however, no one unifying section on Metro's renaming policy.  If it can be written neutrally and be well-sourced (the full text of the actual policy would do nicely if it can be obtained), then I don't see why we couldn't add such a thing.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies: Station names 

message: The mention in the farecards section about "bus pass with rail value" is not true, is it? I remember that they used to have combined bus-rail passes, which unlike rail-only passes (which were gate-activated) were good for the specific week printed on the pass. They were discontinued some years ago, at the time of a fare increase, when they also discontinued the 28-day Fast Pass (which was for convenience only, as it cost exactly four times a 7-day pass).Hgrosser (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus passes with rail value? 

message: Are there any science fiction movies (or any other movies) that use subway stations of the Washington metro as a location?--Soylentyellow (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fiction films that use/feature/are set in Washington Metro subway stations? 

message: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), I've moved this article back onto the Washington Metro title.  The part that convinced me to change it back was, "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"  I remember back in the 90's when I was first looking for Metro on the Internet, I put "Metro" and "Washington DC" in there.  "Metrorail" never came to mind, and I've never heard anyone but Metro themselves refer to the system as "Metrorail".  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. ProhibitOnions (T) 08:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved back to "Washington Metro" 

message: WMATA has proposed a new line to run from Franconia-Springfield to Greenbelt and has used brown to designate this line on the map that they used.  Would it be considered somewhat premature to create Brown Line (Washington Metro)?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Google News, I only see a couple of references, so at this point I think an article is premature, if only due to a complete lack of information. Is there an actual WMATA press release? Also, from one news result: "Metro's planning maps depict the new route as a brown line, but no color has been chosen." In other words, it would be like the articles named "Britney Spears' fifth studio album". --Golbez (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WMATA press release, not yet.  This is actually based on a PDF from WMATA's site.  But based on your discussion, I'll agree that for now, it's premature for a Brown Line article until more ink is spent on it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested to see this PDF, though, have a link? :) --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you are.  Additionally, WTOP cited it as well.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown Line article - yes, no, maybe? 

message: Metro's website, at http://www.wmata.com/riding/holiday_schedule.cfm and http://www.wmata.com/riding/passes.cfm#Metrorail, states that weekday schedules will be in effect on Columbus Day, Mon. Oct. 13, and 3 other holidays, and therefore peak fares will be in effect during peak hours and 1-day passes will not be valid until 9:30 am. However, this is contradicted by the press releases cited in Washington_Metro#Passes, which state that a modified (starting at 5 am) Saturday schedule will be in effect for those holidays. Before I added that sentence, I wrote to Metro pointing out the contradiction, and this is the response I received:
Monday, May 5, 2008 7:07 AM
From csvc@wmata.com Mon May 5 07:07:51 2008
Return-Path: 	<csvc@wmata.com>
From:		csvc@wmata.com  
To: 		hgrosser-at-yahoo.com
bcc: 		jgreene@wmata.com
Subject: 	Your Reply
Content-type: 	multipart/mixed; boundary=ps-boundary-1
Content-Length: 2073
Dear Mr. Grosser:
Thank you for your recent email concerning holiday Metrorail schedules.  We apologize for any confusing on this subject.  The holiday page on our website is correct.  Metrorail operates from 5:00 a.m. until midnight, however, the trains do not operate as frequently as they do on a non-holiday weekday. 
I hope this information is helpful.  Please contact our team directly whenever you have questions or concerns related to the Red Line. To speak to a Red Line Customer Service Representative for Comments, Complaints or Suggestions, please call 301-562-4605 weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. You can leave a message at all other times or complete the comment form located on our website at www.wmata.com.
If you ever need to speak with a Customer Information Agent for assistance with general questions, please call 202-637-7000; Mon-Thurs: 6 a.m.-10:30 p.m., Fri: 6 a.m.-11:30 p.m., Sat: 7 a.m.-11:30 p.m., Sun: 7 a.m.-10:30 p.m.
Sincerely,
Jeannie Greene-Barr
Case # 405263
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
on 2008-05-02-18.01.46.000000,  hgrosser-at-yahoo.com (Harvey Grosser) wrote:
Your holiday page (http://wmata.com/riding/holiday_schedule.cfm) says that weekday schedules (and by extension, fares) are in effect on Metrorail for the 4 minor federal holidays of Columbus Day, Veterans Day, M.L. King Day, and Presidents Day. However, according to the press release archive, weekday schedules for these days was put into effect in the fall of 2006 (FY 2007) (http://wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1392) but was switched back to modified Saturday service next year due to insufficient ridership (http://wmata.com/about/met_news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1806). Please correct this page if wrong.
       
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When responding to this email, please include the following ID number: "[THREAD_ID:346452]" . This will help us serve you better.
To help resolve this discrepancy, will anyone reading this post who happens to ride Metro on Monday Oct. 13 please post a reply to this post on whether you were charged peak fare for entry before 9:30 am or from 3−7 pm (the digital clock above the station manager’s booth is authoritative), or if you were able to use a 1-day pass before 9:30 am. Thanks.
Hgrosser (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite seeing where you're trying to go with this...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it turns out that peak fares are not charged on Columbus Day, then WMATA’s web site is incorrect, and a statement to that effect should be added to the Wikipedia article. Hgrosser (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took Metro today from Rosslyn to Wheaton at the beginning of the evening rush period, and was charged the reduced fare.  However, this is totally original research, and I provide this information mainly to satisfy your curiosity.  As it is original research, do NOT add this information to the article.  Don't even think about it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I called Metro’s transit information line (twice) on Monday during the morning peak. There was a recording stating that Metrorail would be running a modified Saturday schedule starting at 5 am and that parking would be free all day. Both times the info clerk stated that non-peak fares would be in effect all day and that 1-day passes could be used at any time. On the 2nd call I informed the clerk the Metro’s website listed Columbus Day as a weekday. She put me on hold to check it out and then said that they would be fixing it. Now, http://www.wmata.com/riding/holiday_schedule.cfm lists Columbus Day as a “Modified holiday schedule” (whatever that means), but they didn’t change the other 3 minor holidays. It’s clear from this and the e-mail exchange above that their Web staff is not on the ball, and when I have the time (it’s getting really late now) I will add a note to the reference (not the text of the article) that this page is highly questionable.  Hgrosser (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbus Day — will peak fares be in effect? 

message: Could someone please write a neutral section on the bag searches that Metro has instituted?  I would write one, but I'm so thoroughly PO'd about it, that I'm afraid that if I do, it won't come out neutral.  Here are some sources:
* Metro to Randomly Search Riders' Bags from The Washington Post
* Washington Post online chat with Metro Transit Police Chief Michael Taborn about the bag searches
* WMATA press release on the bag searches
* WMATA video on bag searches
And for what it's worth, I was the commenter who talked about "money down a rat hole" in the Express.  But if someone would be so kind as to lay a neutral base for this section, I'd much appreciate it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that a section is really needed. One or two sentences could be added under Metro Transit Police but is not significant enough to warrant an entire section. --Patrick (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bag searches 

message: Why can I not get the whole fare schedule that is posted in all metro stations?  I live in other state and can expense my fares, but neglecting to write them before leaving D.C. has caused problems.  Do you have a web site with fares?†⅔₳₣  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.157.127 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first link under the Washington Metro#External links section is for the official web site. A "Fares" tab along the top of that site provides access to current fares. For fares from a particular station, use the "Rail" Stations tab and select a station, then click the "Get Fares" button. As fares are subject to change by Metro, it's not feasible to include them here. —ADavidB 09:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fares 

message: I think it's misleading to include that "Metro in 2030" image, since it's just a blogger's dream and hasn't been a serious proposal by Metro officials, government officials, or the media. It seems to be one man's arbitrary wish list, but including it on this page gives it a lot more credence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this was used by WMATA in a presentation to the WMATA board showing where they wanted to be, so it does deserve a space on here.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Disagree - The map proposal is adequate. While this is one person's creation, it was presented to the Metro board as a possible future configuration. The Metro board agreed. Further, the press release has not changed, Metro simply upgraded their website and as a result many URLs changed. The press release can be found here: . The blue line reroute is a long-discussed plan to reduce congestion along the orange line as described in numerous sources in the article. The map does show the Yellow Line reroute between Franconia-Springfield and Greenbelt stations. Whether to make the line an alternate Yellow Line or a new "Brown Line" is still up for discussion. As it is, the map is perfectly up-to-date, acceptable, and an adequate representation for Metro's plans. Best, epicAdam(talk) 06:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I had found the relocated press release like you linked when I made this comments. (It does not have this map... that link is broken.)  So its still seems to not be a published source that can't be verified. But mostly, having a map like this seems to give the undue impression that these plans are further along in the planning/funding/whatever stages and are much more likely than not to be built this way. Okay, I reworded the caption a bit to make it clearer this is a "vision of the future" and not a more concrete proposal. Ehlkej (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future expansion photo 

message: There should be a sentence somewhere (here or Metro rolling stock article) where it says whether the cars are the same as BART or not.   The whole world is watching and wants to know! User F203 (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why BART? --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why BART because the two systems are comparable in age, and both have rail cars by Rohr.  However, the similarities pretty much end there, because BART and Metro are very different systems otherwise.  No sentence needed.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: I think it's time for a subarticle on safety issues, where we can go into detail.  It might include a list of incidents, which is a handy thing for Wikipedia to have for our readers.  There have been too many incidents, making it harder to remember each one, along why they happened, the outcome of investigations, and other such things.  A subarticle could also provide broader context, than just the incidents. --Aude (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A sub-article may be fine, but it may just end up being a list. The general consensus on this page is to only list those accidents that resulted in injuries or fatalities. People are welcome to go through the Metro service disruption reports to find every of the hundreds of instances where a train experienced a failure or derailed. The vast majority of these incidents are unremarkable but I wouldn't object to them being on a sub page. On a related issue, I dislike the way that the current "Accidents" section is structured. For starters, I think the information should be listed chronologically, just as history section would be. Additionally, I think there are too many subsections and that do not serve any purpose except to categorize text that could be better presented as a narrative. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely think the June 2008 incident requiring evacuation of hundreds of passengers was major and worth mentioning, along with the fact that there is a history of these incidents, a tendency for Metro to disregard safety recommendations, and a lack of oversight on safety matters.  For now, incidents logically fall into two categories: collisions and derailments.  I have restructured the section as such and moved some things to the new subarticle. --Aude (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - I think this is a good idea. One of the things that has bothered me about this week's news coverage is the total ignoring of the 1996 Shady Grove crash, which was eerily similar to Monday's crash. It seems to have been glossed over because only the train operator died and no customers did. :-( Acps110 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subarticle