Talk:Pacific Surfliner

message: Corrected lead paragraph to show Pacific Surfliner as the second busiest Amtrak route, behind the Northeast Corridor, at least for the month of January 2006.  Previously, both the Capitol Corridor and the Pacific Surfliner page claimed that each route was the third busiest (see further discussion at Talk:Capitol Corridor). Also, in the same sentence, changed the NEC reference from Acela (which is an article about just the Acela brand name) to Northeast Corridor, since technically both the Acela/Metroliner service and the Regional service surpass the California routes. - Comodude 03:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Pacific Surfliner'' is second, not third, busiest route 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.runthroughtracks.org/
** In Pacific Surfliner on Mon Jul 17 14:53:10 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')
** In Pacific Surfliner on Thu Jul 27 00:37:15 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Could someone help out with the station articles that have yet to be made. I'm not from California, so I don't know about the stations, so if anyone is familiar with them, please create good articles. I can always help improve them. Geoking66 04:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not from California either, and I noticed that the infobox for Northridge (Metrolink station) was given a color bar for this line, even though all evidence indicates that Amtrak doesn't stop there. And I was getting ready to add an Amtrak routebox to the Metrolink one until I found this out. ---- DanTD 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right the PS doens't stop at Northridge. I'm from Southern CA and I would be willing to help answer any questions and help improve the pages. RickyCourtney 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station Articles 

message: The reason why the route map is displayed outsidethe infobox is that it doesn't display correctly when inside it. It ends up with gaps between each line segment. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route template 

message: The Pacific Surfliner now serves Metrolink's station at Laguna Niguel / Mission Viejo, right? I think this should be added. The Interloafer (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laguna Niguel / Mission Viejo 

message: The 3.09 million figure is unsubstantiated in either of the references. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FY2009 has not ended just yet. In the meantime, I will post up the 2.89 million figure for FY2008.Facial (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 Ridership  

message: This is akin to a trivia section, or listing accidents on the 405 freeway. A quick look at the San Joaquins and Capitol Corridor routes gives some perspective on the proper layout of an article.
An encyclopedia should be a summary of information about a subject, and thus, listing accidents should not be included.Facial (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents Section 

message: This article could benefit greatly from the addition and expansion of a dedicated "History" (as seen in the California Zephyr article though its a bit unorganized there]] and "Proposed Expansions" section (as seen in the Capitol Corridor article). Socalres (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History/ Proposed Expansions Section 

message: An image used in this article, File:San Diego train station.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) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:San Diego train station.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The link to Amtrak's January 2006 Monthly Performance Report is unavailable. Please fix the link or delete it. Thank you! Max Buskirk (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unavailable Link

message: Interactive map contains the misspelling "Surt" for the coastal location Surf. 99.103.247.221 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.--RickyCourtney (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surf, not Surt 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pacific Surfliner. 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/20141004163916/http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/730/658/FY13-Record-Ridership-ATK-13-122.pdf to http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/730/658/FY13-Record-Ridership-ATK-13-122.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) 12:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I propose that we eliminate the former stations (Anaheim, Orange, Laguna Niguel/​Mission Viejo, Carlsbad Village, Carlsbad Poinsettia, Encinitas, and Sorrento Valley) from the table and infobox map. We should continue to mention them in the prose of the page and on the individual station pages. Here's my reasoning: these stations were served for a brief period of time (4-6 years), they had very limited service (in most cases, they were only served by a few trains) and they were more of a trial addition for Rail2Rail passengers, meaning the station stop was more meant for Metrolink or Coaster pass holders, and weren't actively marketed to Amtrak customers. WP:INFOBOX states that infoboxes should, "...summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I think that same idea can be applied to station tables too, and I do not believe stations served for a brief time, by few trains as part of a trial program... does not meet that threshold of "key facts" that readers need to see at a glance. --RickyCourtney (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: While short-lived, they were listed in Amtrak timetables as regular stops, and should be included. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  They will still be included in appropriate places on the page. My point is, does the fact these stations were served for a brief time, by few trains as part of a trial program meet Wikipedia's threshold of being "key facts" that readers need to see at a glance? I don't think they do. --RickyCourtney (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A table is not an infobox; the reader expects it to be a complete listing of the information it claims to contain. It is misleading to have a table of stations and leave out several because of an arbitrary criteria. (How many daily trains would you require to put in the table? How many years?) Regardless of ridership or purpose, Amtrak treated these as regular stops rather than mere contracted stops. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

text: If you're concerned about key facts, a much more pressing concern is the massive listing of every single local bus connection - a list that's never going to be reliably kept up to date with changes from over two dozen bus systems. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and that information should not be included. Leaving the muni operators in the list, but I would argue that those could come out too. Back to my earlier point... would you be open to removing the closed stations from the strip map in the infobox because they are not key facts? --RickyCourtney (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree with that removal. Every RDT that I can think of shows former stations; there needs to be a compelling reason to deviate from that standard, and I don't see that here. If there's really a reason to remove six lines from a default-collapsed RDT, I'd much rather see the details of Metro/San Diego Trolley tracks and the parking note removed. BTW, two notes about the stations table: location should be the leftmost column, as multi-row columns in the center of the table are an accessibility issue. The changes you made to LA Union Station look very nice. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminate former stations in table/infobox map