Talk:Green Line (MBTA)

message: Why address in the context as an E Line extension?  The E Line travels south of the Boston Core, to Jamaica Plain.  The proposed extension would travel in the opposite direction, north to Somerville.Dogru144 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his point was that it would be the E-trains that would be extended from running from JP to Lechmore to Somerville and Medford. Though they are unmarked traveling inbound, outbound trains leaving from Somerville and Medford would be E-trains. However, it is not confirmed if that is actually how the MBTA will run them. It just seems the most obvious since E already runs to Lechmere. In an ideal world, I would suggest to the MBTA that the E run to Medford Route 16 and C to the Union Square spur since C now stops at North Station. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They currently plan to extend the D to College Ave because it is the most reliable line (it has a dedicated right-of-way to Riverside), and the E to Union Square because it is only one stop beyond Lechmere.  I'm not sure Heath Street would be considered part of JP, but hey. -- Beland (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment (2010)

message: Given the high degree of overlap, I implemented the merge, preserving the external links as requested. -- Beland (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome (2010)

message: The Green Line Extension is now officially under construction. As such, I've moved much of the content back to Green Line Extension page, with an appropriate summary left here. It's just as well - the full-length section was a full quarter of the article! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-added the merge template to Green Line Extension as a discussion was not undertaken to decide if a "re-split" was appropriate. As I have stated before, the Green Line Extension article is not about a new transit line. There is no need for two articles about the same thing. If the extension was creating a new transit line I would be all for a seperate article but as it stands it is just an extension of a current line. This should still be in the "Future Plans" section of the "Green Line (MBTA)" article.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I split it mainly because of the length; as I said before, the full-length section was a quarter of the entire article - and it's just going to grow as the project actually gets into gear. The GLX is a major engineering project in and of itself; I feel that the engineering details and historical timeline are best put in a separate article where they can be expanded on at length. Then, the section in the main Green Line article can focus on a briefer summary (one that won't overwhelm the article) and some on how Green Line operations will change with the through-running and whatnot. There is precedent for the separate engineering pieces having their own separate article: see Tremont Street Subway, Canal Street Incline, and Pleasant Street Portal on the Green Line, and Charlestown Elevated, Washington Street Elevated, and Haymarket North Extension on the Orange Line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The length argument, to me at least, isn't really a starter as the Green line article is not an unwieldy length. If the length of the extension section truly was too large in compassion to the entire article why wasn't either it slimmed down, or other parts of the article bulked up? Should there really not be any history of the green line here, just a link to another page for it? The precedents you have cited, to me, seem kind of like comparing apples and oranges. The Tremont Street Subway, Incline, and Portal are all historical pieces of infrastructure that wither were or enabled the first subway in America, while the Green Line extension has not even begun laying track. The two Elevateds basically equal suspended transits lines and historical monolithic structures, neither of which the Green Line extension is. The Orange Line extension I feel does fall into the same category, and I think that it as well should be merged into the page for it's line. The most similar project to the Green Line Extension that the MBTA has undertaken is probably the Red Line Northwest Extension and it does not have it's own page.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much time for a full response (coming tomorrow) but frankly I think there's no reason each extension can't have its own article. The Northwest extension, while not as visible as the elevateds, was a massive engineering projects on its own - and with a little research I could probably create an article on it larger than the current GLX article. (And, given the chance to copyedit my prose, probably better-written :) ) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I support keeping the Green Line Extension separate, as it is now a major project underway, and is already generating enough material to stand on its own.  There seems to be ample precedent for major transit extension projects to have their own stand-alone articles.  The Red Line Northwest extension was also a major project with many aspects of interest; I look forward to seeing a well-researched article about it.  Reify-tech (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-split (2012-2013)

message: The "History" section of the Green Line article is quite comprehensive, but is much too long and detailed for many first-time readers.  Also, there has been a long-standing proposal to merge in the Tremont Street Subway article, which would make the entire Green Line article even longer.  It would seem appropriate to split out the History section as a separate article, leaving just the introductory part before the Portals listing behind in the Green Line article.  I think that merging the Tremont Street Subway article into the new History article would be a good idea, but am willing to consider leaving it separate.  A possible name for the new article is Green Line (MBTA History), but other ideas are solicited.  Any comments?  Reify-tech (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It still makes the Green Line secondary. Perhaps "MBTA Green Line History"? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the split because it obviously needed doing. It is at MBTA History (Green Line). I appreciate there was no concensus on the name, but it can be moved later if needed. I trust there's no hard feelings Op47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Split and merge History article?

message: Unless I'm mistaken, the Route Map (line and station diagram) is missing the "B" Boston College Line.  A stub is visible just beyond Kenmore station, but nothing connects to it.  On the other hand, completing the Route Map will make the infobox sidebar even longer, pushing the photos even further down a very long page.  Should there be some sort of ""Hide/Show" feature to allow the reader to control this?  I'm not skilled in setting up these line diagrams, so I hope somebody can step forward to complete the diagram.  Reify-tech (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it on later today Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I haven't had time to get to it. (Okay, well, I suppose I DO have time, but I've spent it elsewhere on other articles! :P) I was hoping to get around to the Hide/Unhide boxes as well, but I'm not sure how.BostonUrbEx (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Okay, my work here is done. All the station names are done, the fiddly bits (portals, elevated, and historical bits like the Pleasant Street Portal) added, and the collapsible sections line up. (Converting to BS3 is NOT possible, as it messes up the collapsibles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great! Is it possible to hide the GLX though? Grk1011 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really any way to hide the GLX, unfortunately. Branches off to the side and at the ends work for that, but the GLX goes around Lechmere, so having it hideable would bork the formatting. Fortunately, it's not too many rows. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for a very nice rework of the route diagram!  The overall connectivity of the Green Line branches is much easier to see, and the reader can expand the different branches as desired, to see the details. Reify-tech (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I aim to please. Thank UrbEx for doing all the tough stuff; I just added the formatting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work! It looks very nice. :] BostonUrbEx (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  B Branch (Boston College) Missing? 

message: Would the proper term be train or trolly when referring to the green line? Currently the article uses both terms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Colloquially, I feel it doesn't really matter, though I know others have strong opinions. The Green Line runs rolling stock designed as light rail vehicles rather than trolleys/trams/streetcars, but they have a substantial section of streetcar trackage. At most times they run with multiple-unit operation as two or three car trains; however, the T will also call one-car services 'trains'. I would probably standardize on "trolley" for the vehicles themselves (a generic term used even for many light rail systems) and "train" for trolleys of any number in actual operation, if you feel a strong need to standardize on anything. (Note that "trolly" is an all-too-common bastardized misspelling of "trolley", and should never be used.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pi.1415926535's well-stated comments on this.  Reify-tech (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Train or Trolly?

message: What is happening with the infobox at the top of the page?  Why is it refusing to display (for me at least)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many template transclusions - your recent edits (while generally good) have made  so big that it effectively crashes the page. It may need to reside outside the infobox, or be reduced in size. (In particular, pre-1964 changes to the Green Line probably belong in a separate template for History of the MBTA Green Line). I've temporarily removed it until we can find a good workaround. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Would placing  immediately below the infobox, rather than in it, fix the problem?  If not, maybe having the infobox contain a link to the map, rather than the map itself? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 16:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just placing it below doesn't work; it may be possible to put it in a bare infobox but that's a poor solution, as is only having a link to the template. The template just needs to be made smaller, and unfortunately that means removing a lot of what you've put in recently.  should only have the current state of the line, definitive future projects (GC and GLX, maybe the coming B stop consolidation), and major changes during the MBTA era (A Branch, Arborway Line, Causeway Street Elevated). More historical detail than that (especially during BERy and MTA eras) is not useful for the lede of a high-level overview article like this; it belongs in detail templates for Boston-area streetcar lines, History of the MBTA Green Line, and Tremont Street Subway. Similarly, the stop consolidations (2005 on the B, and mid-80s on the C) probably only belong with the individual line articles and the history article. There's just far too many changes with the Tremont Street Subway and all its feeder lines since 1897 to possibly incorporate all of them into one template and have it remain useful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pity; I've managed to get a workable version of the page using the full template put together on my sandbox page here...  EDIT: I've copied the full version of  over to  - it'll probably be useful in History of the MBTA Green Line.  ANOTHER EDIT: I've gotten a slimmer version of the main template up for consideration over at Template talk:MBTA Green Line#Pruned version. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 17:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pi.1415926535.  Even without the unfortunate malfunction of the template code, the historical details of past Green Line configurations are too complicated and distracting for the overview article.  Fortunately, there already is a History of the MBTA Green Line article, which is where the historical details belong. Your efforts won't go to waste, since there currently isn't a route diagram at the History article, and it needs one to help tie the narrative together. Reify-tech (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And now History of the MBTA Green Line has a section for .  Still waiting for comments on the pruned version of , tho... Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 17:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've WP:BOLDly implemented the pruned version of  and returned the new route diagram to the infobox.  Said infobox seems to work fine now. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 18:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the route map at this article is still too cluttered with historical information not directly connected to current routing.  The majority of readers of this article are interested in the current connectivity of the Green Line, and how they can get from one station to another in the present day.  The more-detailed historical map at the History of the MBTA Green Line article is fine, and helpful in understanding the evolution over time of the Green Line routes, for those readers who are interested.  Reify-tech (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates not behaving properly?! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Green Line (MBTA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111016122407/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2009/RAR0902.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2009/RAR0902.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A quick check suggests this isn't in the article -- and usable for more than Green Line, too! http://www.bostonstreetcars.com/ EEng 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great source! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Green Line (MBTA). 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/20140912053503/http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/documents/2014%20BLUEBOOK%2014th%20Edition.pdf to http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/documents/2014%20BLUEBOOK%2014th%20Edition.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7451
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/17/green_line_seeks_zippier_service_with_upgrade_plan
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/local/startsandstops/blog/2006/12/bredas.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222052251/http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19417457/detail.html to http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19417457/detail.html
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) 23:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Green Line (MBTA). 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/20110708181521/https://www.commentmgr.com/Projects/1228/docs/13886feir.pdf to https://www.commentmgr.com/Projects/1228/docs/13886feir.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222052240/http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19411812/detail.html to http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19411812/detail.html
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) 11:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can there be new wiki pages for the Type 7 and Type 8 Cars? RedProofHill123 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real need for that - they can be adequately discussed in this article. Both were one-off fleets, not a more widely-used model like the Siemens S70 that deserves coverage wider than a subsection. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

text: That's not how this works. The S70 and R46 are much more widely-used. Wikipedia articles aren't created simply because the subject exists; Not all railcars are equal. Railcars that have articles are generally kept if they are more WP:NOTABLE than most. Take for instance flower species. Most flower species in the world don't have articles; There are most likely millions of them, but most are not unique or notable enough. Rafflesia has an article because it has received a lot of media attention and is extensively-documented by many reliable sources. For most railcars in the world, much like with most flowers, you'd be lucky to find more than two sources that qualify as reliable sources to back up your article. I see you a lot in transit-related article talk pages, and it seems to me like you don't fully understand how the site works yet, and you don't ask enough questions. Remember that most editors - myself included - would be happy to help you understand why your articles keep getting declined, if you'll let us. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and if you accept constructive criticism, you'll be well on your way to making better contributions to the site. BruzerFox 06:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles  

message: The schematic figure shows North Station as an elevated station. It hasn't been elevated in more than 20 years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.242.139.199 (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schematic error 

message: The entire incidents and accidents section contains nothing but brief summaries of routine news reports of minor incidents and accidents.  Per WP:NOTNEWS, to wit "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" and most of the information in this section lacks any greater significance outside of the short time when the accident was reported.  This kind of indiscriminate listing of mostly unremarkable events should probably be entirely removed, unless someone can find where these events are covered outside of the news cycle when they occurred.  --Jayron32 18:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - "trolley hits pole and some windows got damaged" is the perfect example of that. Will go and be bold. Turini2 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents and accidents section 

message: I'm pretty sure that I've seen the MBTA run one-car trains during weekday hours. Maybe outdated source? AriTheHorseTalk to me! 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "outdated" is better than "false"! Find a source that confirms that they do / do not run one-car trains during weekday hours, and change/don't change the wording :) Turini2 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the wording of the article: . There are occasional one-car trains run for various reasons - shortages of rolling stock, service disruptions, issues with one car in a two-car train, etc - but these are unscheduled and uncommon. The latest source I have available - Rollsign magazine Jan/Feb 2023 issue - indicates that all Green Line service is scheduled as two-car trains. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly false piece in article