Talk:MetroLink (Dublin)

message: I forgot to mention that not all of the references in this article work properly.  I don't know how to fix that, so if someone who does reads this note, please help.  (Only footnotes 1-3 appear in the references section.) Bardavia (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to fix references as well as rewriting large parts of the article and updating information. Please let me know what you think. Alanmryan100 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I did some more cleanup of language, grammar, punctuation, etc., today.  At what point can the copyedit flag be removed from the article?  (I'm new at this and don't know how or by whom this is done.)  My view is that the article need no longer be listed as in need of copyedit.
:No hard and fast rules, but if improved considerably then you may remove copyedit flag. If someone thinks what you have done is improper they will likely raise their voice. See WP:CONSENSUS. Djegan (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit and Tone

message: If someone could get a map of the metro routes, that would improve the quality of the article. Jvlm.123 15:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to say the same thing.  -- Beland 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems with giving maps is that the metro is proposed and not implemented. The danger with this article is that it could be premature, the Luas proposed and implemented had some differences. Djegan 22:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a map which I made myself, based on the ones on the RPA website. Has anyone got any comments/feedback before I look to make a similar one for Metro West?  Much appreciated, thanks Alanmryan100 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: As easy as it is to make allegations such as these some reference should be supplied lest it fall fowl of Wikipedia is not original research and/or thus gain common currency. Djegan 15:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prime Ministerial Vanity?: tagged as unreferenced

message: I have tagged the article with the future product template as the project is still in early stages. The proposed Luas five years before implementation was distinctly different to the project that opened and it is only right that such articles be duly identified here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Djegan 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged: future product

message: Having now added references , why is this being removed ?
* Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper opinion page. I think the "Prime Ministerial Vanity" section is very biased and is only being added to satisfy your own need to take a cheap shot at the government. That's not what the article should be about. It's about the propsed metro system. Maybe you should add some more to the "Need for a Metro" section instead. (Also, just for the record, I never removed the "Prime Ministerial Vanity" section because I don't feel it's my position to do so - that would be for the moderators...)
::This doesn't have anywhere near vaguely appropriate references - it's a thinly-veiled inappropriate partisan rant.   It has a few pieces of supposed evidence for your case, but you've failed to supply any references to demonstrate that people other than you are making all those points.  A news story covering this, or finding someone making all these points in the Official Report, would do, and even then it would limit us to making the points that they are doing.  Morwen - Talk 10:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prime Ministerial Vanity 

message: I have just removed the following sentence:
One source of current debate is the feasibility of providing an interchange station between the Metro and the DART where their respective lines cross in the vicinity of Glasnevin or Drumcondra.
The reason it is nonsense is that the DART does not go anywhere near either Glasnevin nor Drumcondra. So the metro cannot cross the dart in those areas. Frelke 06:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Precocious sentence re: DART in Drumcondra

message: The maps provided don't seem to be very accurate. I suggest that anyone interested drawing up a new map should follow this link to the Railway Procurement Agency website for a more precise template:
http://www.rpa.ie/upload/documents/October%202006%20-%20Dublin%20Metro%20North.pdf
(above was written by someone else)
The map on the page has a typo -- "O'Connell St" for "O'Connell Bridge". Can the OP fix? Wwhyte 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps in this entry 

message: I have deleted the following
‘despite the precedent for accommodating bicycles on public transportation across the rest of Europe.’
This is opinion and in any case there is no ‘precedent’ for carrying bicycles on public transport across the rest of Europe. Some urban railways such as the Barcelona tramway allow the transportation of bicycles but the vast majority do not.
It's not an opinion.  There are several precedents around Europe for carrying bicycles on public transport.  Although I did not write this original sentence, I think this should go back in.
I have also deleted
‘The distances between some of the city centre stations is also likely to become an issue.  Inclusion of a station at Parnell Square would go some way to dealing with the problem of the long gap between the Mater station and O'Connell Bridge.  However, the distance between O'Connell Bridge and St. Stephen's Green (around 800 metres) is considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros. It seems likely that the issue of station location will become a central one.’
The view that the distance between stations is likely to become an issue is just that a view. Again this is not a place for political opinions about what might happen. If it becomes a notable controversy by all means let's record it, but until then it has no place here. Also the statement that 800 mtrs ‘is considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros’ is entirely false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.109.27.38 (talk • contribs).
I agree with you that this is only a view, and I probably should have phrased this differently.  However, to suggest that the statement about the interstation distances is "entirely false" is complete nonsense.  I could give numerous examples of where this is the case - in fact it is probably considerably more difficult to give examples where this is not the case.  Have a look, for example, at Paris. The average interstation distance for all the lines on the entire 16-line network (serving around 9.9 million people) is 564 metres.  This includes all stations, not just the central ones.  The comparison with Dublin (1.2 million people to be served by 2 metro lines) is, I think, a fair one.  I shall rewrite the paragraph when I have time and re-insert it.
On the bicycle issue my problem is that the use of the definite article in the phrase ‘despite the precedent for accommodating bicycles on public transportation across the rest of Europe.’  Implies that bicycles are accepted on all or almost all public transport across Europe. This is of course untrue and is especially misleading when applied to underground metros where accommodation of bikes is the exception rather than the norm.  For example no bicycle, except the folding ones, are allowed on the Paris Metro or indeed to the best of my knowledge on any French tramway or metro. This being France of course it does not mean you will never see one just that it is not allowed. Madrid allows Bikes on Weekends and national holidays but at no other times,  Berlin U-Bahn allows bikes with the payment of a supplement and only on specially marked trains, Barcelona outside peak hours,  Athens only on one of the lines and then  outside peak and through rear doors of train, London not on the deep ‘tube’ lines and on the others only outside peak hours. 
In short there is no single precedent as implied; also it is my understanding that it is far from settled that bikes will not be allowed on at all, it will be a matter for the operator, the RPA and the Railway Safety Commission to discuss at the appropriate time ie during the bids.
On the subject of the 800m gap between stations you site the example of Paris averaging 564 meters (the area covered by the metro is by the way nowhere near the 9.9 million people you claim as most of the greater Paris area is covered not by the metro but by the RER.) However Paris is odd, for one thing it is an unusually dense city compared to others and for another at the time the majority of Paris was built in the early years of the last century the designers unusually were happy to come down on the close stations side of the journey time number of stations trade off. Interestingly the latest line, line 14 boasts a much more usual average of, off the top of my head, approx 1,100m.
  
But I’m not here to give a lecture about the finer points of station location selection and patronage maximisation, just to observe that Paris is about the only system you can make this claim for. To give but a few examples, and I could go on and on and on, all figures are approx but close enough for our purposes, Tokyo 1,162m, Seoul 1,078m, Madrid 1,042m London 1,500m, Porto 895m, Lyons 1,153m, Moscow 1,742m, Mexico City 1,742m, Munich (U-Bahn) 1,400m, Singapore 1,709m, New York 2,389m, Berlin (U-Bahn) 912m.
Admittedly these are averages across a whole system and not restricted only to the city centre, but they are averages, there are many hundreds of station pairs on metros in city centres around the world that are 800m or longer just as there are many hundreds shorter, it’s just not unusual. Perhaps for a tramway it would be more so, but defiantly not for a metro.  
82.152.221.248 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal views presented as fact

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/dublin-metro/
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.railway-technology.com
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dublin Metro. 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/20071119033350/http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf to http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080530150930/http://www.rpa.ie/upload/documents/Metro%20North%20Route%200308.pdf to http://www.rpa.ie/upload/documents/Metro%20North%20Route%200308.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119041239/http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1020/blog-21october2010_primetime.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1020/blog-21october2010_primetime.html
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 09:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dublin Metro. 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/20110615054426/http://www.rpa.ie/en/news/Pages/MetroNorthMythsandFacts.aspx to http://www.rpa.ie/en/news/Pages/MetroNorthMythsandFacts.aspx
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 01:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dublin Metro. 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/20120329151425/http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=1189 to http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=1189
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602200210/http://www.dublinpeople.com/article.php?id=3655&l=100 to http://www.dublinpeople.com/article.php?id=3655&l=100
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001003500/http://www.dublinmetronorth.ie:80/ to http://www.dublinmetronorth.ie
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dublin Metro. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20081001003500/http%3A//www.dublinmetronorth.ie%3A80/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130143736/http://www.transport21.ie/ to http://transport21.ie/
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) 21:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dublin Metro. 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/20110615054325/http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/metro_north/build_and_operation_permission/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/metro_north/build_and_operation_permission/Pages/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303222146/http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20West/Metro%20West%20alignment_1108.map.pdf to http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20West/Metro%20West%20alignment_1108.map.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.rpa.ie/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130143736/http://www.transport21.ie/ to http://transport21.ie/
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) 11:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dublin Metro. 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/20080314224537/http://www.rpa.ie/?id=327 to http://www.rpa.ie/?id=327
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515074905/http://www.rpa.ie/en/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.rpa.ie/en/Pages/default.aspx
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) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's claimed in the operations section that trains will operate at a commercial speed of 40km/h, however I haven't been able to find this in any of TII's own documents and it contradicts what they're saying about the entire 18.8km route taking 25 minutes to travel end to end (an average speed of about 45km/h) NoComment1 (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "unfounded", but that text is supported by this reference - an article by David Burroughs in the International Railway Journal dated to 11 May 2020. Which appears to be a relatively reliable source. And which reads "While the metro will be designed for 80km/h operation, the commercial operating speed is expected to be 40km/h". If you are aware of a contradictory source (that doesn't rely on OR or SYNTH), then please do add it. Guliolopez (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As reliable as the reference may be, this is mentioned nowhere in any official documents, even the operations overview in the planning report (page 15). It also wouldn't be physically possible for a commercial speed of 40km/h if the official end-to-end journey time is to be trusted, as I mentioned earlier. NoComment1 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's as may be. But doing you/our own calculations is WP:OR. An editor's opinion or interpretation not actually stated in the source. If there is another source which speaks to operating speed (that doesn't require us or the reader to do their own maths), then please add it. Otherwise, while you haven't actually stated what change you propose to make, perhaps it may be suitable to simply add qualifier like "according to a 2020 article in the International Railway Journal ..." or "some sources state ..." or "reportedly ..." or "approximately ..." or similar. Otherwise, personally, the difference between 40kmph and 45kmph seems within a margin of approximation... Guliolopez (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be best to remove it entirely and add some verifiable information about operating hours and journey times. NoComment1 (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemingly unfounded claim of 40km/h operating speed 

message: The MetroLink is already planned and will hopefully be ready for construction to start in a few years. Currently the stations do not have articles, instead linking to the places that they serve, similar to the Luas stops before we added them to Wikipedia. Does anyone think it’s too early to start creating pages for these stations or are we okay to start? And when they are created, what will we call them? Most underground stations are either called tube or just station, though considering the Luas stops are labelled as Luas stop and not tram stop, could something similar apply to the MetroLink too? Ex, Swords Central MetroLink station.
What does everyone think? JoshuaW56 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it too early to start creating articles for the planned stations?