Talk:CT Transit

message: I am concerned about the phrase "acquired by the state in 1976 from The Connecticut (Railway and Lighting) Company when that company entered bankruptcy." As far as I know, Connecticut Company and Connecticut Railway and Lighting were two different companies, ConnCo operating in New Haven, Hartford, and Stamford, CR&L in Bridgeport and Waterbury (and possibly some other cities). -- BRG 14:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acquisition in 1976

message: :Image:Cttransit.gif 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 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cttransit.gif

message: As part of the CTfastrak rebrand, CTtransit has a new logo that they will be putting on the local and exoress buses in Connecticut soon, and said logo is at the top of their home page site. Is it legal under Fair Use or Creative Commons or anything else to use the logo on the Wiki page right now and replace the old logo currently shown? LaPorting4Duty 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New logo as of April 2015 

message: As long as no attempts to make money are being made, then it is legal to use it. Otherwise, there would be thousands of lawsuits against individuals who write Wikipedia articles about any company.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newflyer504 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTtransit logo. 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. per discussion consensus and titling conventions. Ease of parsing and use is the primary concern here per COMMONNAME, but there is also the question of consistency, which multiple (but not all) discussion participants found convincing. It's 4-1 for CT Transit and 3-2 for CT Fastrak, so for the sake of consistency, I'm closing both as moved. (non-admin closure) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, thank you for the ping. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 August 2021 

message: CTtransit has 8 divisions, excluding directly-operated services like Fastrak and Dash.
The articles for the divisions at present treat them almost as though they were separate companies, and their article sizes are near to that of CTtransit itself. (Compare 9,144 bytes for the Waterbury division to 13,413 for the main article) In the case of the Hartford Division, that article actually dwarfs CTtransit's at 29,236 bytes.
So, here's where I get to the point of discussion, what should the purpose of the CTtransit division articles be?
At present they're quite a mess, with some like the New Haven Division being (ostensibly) about the administrative division of CTtransit while the Waterbury division's is just an article about the Northeast Transportation Company. Now, it is true that many of the divisions were separate companies at some point, like the New Britain Division, most of which was the New Britain Transportation Company.
Right now these articles, with the exception of Waterbury, give all of the route information for every route under the Divisions' management. If the standard approach is to be to have each division detail the routes present, shouldn't the current Northeast Transportation Company article be split into separate Waterbury, Meriden, and Wallingford articles, since each is its own division within the company?
If that is to be the case, what about more general categories that CTtransit applies, like "Express Routes"? They did have their own separate numbering system...
Now, I don't want to speak over any discussion that might exist, but I feel as though there are a few things which could be done to improve the current situation:
# (And probably least controversially) Rename the divisions' articles from "Connecticut Transit X Division" to "CT Transit X Division". The company goes by CT Transit, not Connecticut Transit, evident in the main article.
# Remove route information from the divisions' articles. I can't bother to check every single route, but the lists seem very out of date at a glance. This would remove glut from articles like the Hartford Division and make them far more manageable. I wouldn't be opposed to creating route articles, so long as they're notable. (Given just how outdated the present information is, they probably would have to be largely from scratch.)
# Separate the Waterbury, Meriden, and Wallingford articles from the current Northeast Transportation Company article. Right now the article is barely about the company. Nearly all of its content is outdated route information, so doing something here wouldn't be much of a loss...
# Consider Division articles to be about the CT Transit Divisions, not the companies which operate them. Right now I am working on a DATTCO article, and even though it's not implicated all too much here, creating separate articles for the companies which operate these routes (other than just lumping them in under the division they've been assigned to) would be a good move in my opinion.
I would like to hear what others have to think though. The mess of articles has been bothering me for a while seeing as how important CTtransit is in Connecticut...  Artsistra (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of CT transit division articles