Talk:Green Line (MBTA)

Merger proposal

Green Line Extension is not about a new transit line, meerly about the continuation of a current one. There is no need for two articles about the same thing, seeing that there is already an extensive section about the Future Plans of the greenline in the Green Line (MBTA) article--Found5dollar (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• No Merge -the Extension Project article and the Green Line articles are not the same thing. The former is speculative, it is on a project under development. The latter is on an existing line. Furthermore, there are articles on the component lines of the Green Line, the Watertown, Boston College, Cleveland Circle, Newton and Jamaica Plain lines. Deletion of the Somerville line will be inconsistent and will break with precedent.Dogru144 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - If a merger does take place, it should strictly be to the Green Line "E" Branch, since this is the line that's supposed to be extended. ----DanTD (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. The article should be merged into the regular Green line page. This is about the expansion of an existing system, not a new line as 5Dollar already stated. A merge into E-line wouldn't work either because we have no idea how the MBTA will decide to run the trolleys. It will most likely be E to Medford since it already goes to Lechmere, but maybe they will extend the C from North Station to the Union spur or something. We don't know and should not base the article off of our assumptions. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - If a merger does happen, please also move the external links. They are very helpful for understanding the potential placement of the stations. I did not find these links easily using google, for example. Tucoxn (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment (2013)

• Merge. I'm a casual user of Wikipedia. I was actually looking for the Los Angeles green line information when I landed here.

First, the title is ambiguous, as there's more than one green line, and green line extension being proposed. Also is this THE singular extension to the the green line? No extensions in the past, none in the future? When the project is done, is this to be merged with the green line article? I'm suggesting a merge, or at least a less ambiguous title, because of all the other green lines that may or may not be expanding in the world. 69.231.205.88 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are a casual user. The discussion you are adding your voice to is three years old, and was continued below in 2012. Your discussion should have been at the end of this sub-section Talk:Green_Line_(MBTA)#Re-split, perhaps as a new sub-section. If you want to propose a change to the article title, please do so as a new sub-section, or a new section. Note adding " (MBTA)" is used on quite a few article titles to disambiguate them. Any specific proposal you make should consider all these articles.

• The title is not ambiguous by Wikipedia standards. Though I can see where it's not clear at first glance to those who do not know what "MBTA" means. It is clear, if you click through to the article (if you don't have pop-ups enabled), and read the first sentence.

• It's the current extension to the MBTA Green Line, and is of encyclopedic standards. Historic or possible future extensions could be added to either article (if they meet Wikipedia standards), with some sort of cross link to the other article.

• It may be merged when the project is done, years from now. Up to a consensus of editors, at that time.

It would have been better if you had read this entire section, with its sub-sections (noting the dates) and understood all this, before commenting. I hope you become a non-casual editor - Wikipedia needs may more informed editors. Lentower (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment (2010)

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)

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)

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)

Outcome (2010)

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

Re-split (2012-2013)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Split and merge History article?

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)

"Green Line (MBTA History)" makes it sound like there's a whole MBTA History category. Perhaps "History of the MBTA Green Line" or something along those lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "MBTA History (Green Line)" ? I'd like to keep the article titles short and concise. This format allows for "MBTA History (Red Line)", "MBTA History (Buses)" and such to be added if and when appropriate, without the titles becoming too unwieldy to type easily, Reify-tech (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It still makes the Green Line secondary. Perhaps "MBTA Green Line History"? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

B Branch (Boston College) Missing?

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)

I'll take it on later today Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

I've got a stable version now. I still need to do some formatting, link the station names, and so on, but the current version should do till tomorrow. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Looks great! Is it possible to hide the GLX though? Grk1011 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Excellent work! It looks very nice. :] BostonUrbEx (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable claim the green Line was built to "pre-metro standards"

The article contains the questionable claim the green Line was built to "pre-metro standards". I have several problems with this claim. First, the term "premetro" was only coined in the 1970, many decades after the Green Line's tunnels were built. Second, if I read the references properly, only a short segment of the original Green Line tunnels -- about one kilometer -- was built to heavy rail standards for dimensions and turning radius. Third, was there ever any plan that the green line stations should be long enough to accommodate a heavy rail trainset?

So, I think this passage should be rewritten so it doesn't reference pre-metro. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The citation offered at https://archive.org/stream/lightrailtransit00diam#page/8/mode/2up/search/pre-metro defines 'pre-metro' (bottom of page 9) as 'rail systems designed to permit eventual upgrading to rapid transit standards without excessive cost or effort.' I see the point; however, at the bottom of page 9, in the same paragraph in that same article, the Boston Green Line is listed as an example of building to 'pre-metro standards'! Dispute this claim, but there's a printed claim to this effect, though we can argue that the claim is dubious. MaynardClark (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The original Tremont Street Subway was in fact upgraded to heavy rail service (what is now the Orange Line) for a few years (1901-1908), with temporary high platforms. For details, see the map at Atlantic Avenue Elevated, which also appears in the Orange Line article. Once the Washington Street Tunnel was completed, the future Orange Line was switched to there, and the Tremont Street Subway was reverted to streetcars. Of course, all this predates the terms "light rail" and "pre-metro", but the general concept was there, over a century ago. Reify-tech (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As further evidence of intention to convert what is now the Green Line to heavy rail, high platforms were originally constructed in the Kenmore Loop, originally opened in 1932. A depressed trench was hidden under a "temporary" wooden platform for decades, until the space was filled in as it became apparent that a conversion to heavy rail was unlikely in the foreseeable future. They really tried to plan ahead for the long term in those days. Reify-tech (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Green Line as a whole, I would argue, cannot be called a premetro system - it is a conglomeration of many different projects, most of which were not premetro. The Tremont Street Subway from Canal Street to Pleasant Street (1897-1898), and the Boylston Street Subway at Kenmore (1932) were designed to allow future conversion to metro (using, likely, the type of cars originally intended for the Blue Line - more like the Center Entrance streetcars than true metro stock). But other elements were not; the Boylston curve (1897) and Causeway Street Elevated / Lechmere Viaduct (1912) and Huntington Avenue Subway (1941) were built only for streetcars, and anecdotally I have high-level confirmation (from an otherwise private conversation) that the Green Line Extension is not being built with provisions for future Blue Line conversion. Remember, the Tremont Street Subway was first built as a way to get streetcars off the city streets; the Main Line ran through it as a stopgap measure.

The only period in which BERY had any real thought of converting the Green Line was at the end of the 1920s, after the Blue Line had been similarly converted in 1924. After the Great Depression hit, plans to convert were stalled and Kenmore was built with the halfhearted track pits and never-used loop. By the time the Huntington Avenue Subway was built under the WPA, the Green Line was firmly streetcar (note the at-grade junction at Copley). I don't think it's appropriate to lump the Green Line in with systems like Antwerp's that were 100% designed for drop-in heavy rail from the beginning. It is a streetcar system that's been partially converted to modern light rail standards, and there is zero intention to convert anything (except, decades from now, the D Branch) to heavy rail. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Green Line had fragmented pre-metro aspects, but was not designed from the start as a unitary system planned for upgrade to heavy rail. If that is the definition of pre-metro, then the Green Line never met this standard, which it predated in any event. Reify-tech (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Train or Trolly?

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)

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)

I agree with Pi.1415926535's well-stated comments on this. Reify-tech (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Green Line (MBTA)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be the reviewer for this article. I've taken a quick look at this article and so far, I see some major issues with this article just at first glance. There are still some tags (i.e "When" and "Clarification needed" tags), in addition to some poorly referenced sections, which does not meet the Good Article criterion. This is going to be a quick-fail unless you would like for me to go through how to proceed with this article so that it has a chance of passing in the future. If not, I may go ahead and make the improvements myself (which means I wouldn't be able to review this article if it is a GA nominee ever again). Sorry, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can, please improve the article a bit. I can wait for someone else to review the article. Aria1561 (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll make the necessary improvements, but with that, this current nominee is going to be a fail. In the future, please read Wikipedia: Good article criteria prior to nominating an article, so it has a good chance to pass a GA review. Also, you've only made one edit to the page. In general, it's poor etiquette to make a single edit to a potential GA nominee and then nominating it. Usually, you should let the major contributors to the article nominate it, unless they decline. With all that said, I (and anyone else who wants to help) can make the improvements necessary for it having a chance to pass a GA review. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates not behaving properly?!

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)

Too many template transclusions - your recent edits (while generally good) have made {{MBTA Green Line}} 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)

Would placing {{MBTA Green Line}} 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)

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. {{MBTA Green Line}} 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)

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 {{MBTA Green Line}} over to {{MBTA Green Line full}} - 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)

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)

And now History of the MBTA Green Line has a section for {{MBTA Green Line full}}. Still waiting for comments on the pruned version of {{MBTA Green Line}}, tho... Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 17:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly implemented the pruned version of {{MBTA Green Line}} 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)

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)

Probably better to consolidate discussion at Template talk:MBTA Green Line now that it's working in the article. I've addressed some of your concerns there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Merged

I have boldly merged the article History of the MBTA Green Line here. See corresponding talk page thread. Epic Genius (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Good call but you've vastly exceeded the template limit. A prompt re-split with actual history is probably in order. I can probably incorporate all the portals and most of the route information into actual contextual history, but it's going to take some time. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I'm sorry, which template limit? Anyway, if it has to be re-split, I suggest splitting it into Route of the MBTA Green Line, since that's basically what the merged content was about. Epic Genius (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Mediawiki software limits the number of templates allowed on a page in certain ways. The presence of a necessarily large RDT, plus a large number of conversion templates, is causing a number of the templates not to function properly. The easiest way to fix that is to split the page. There isn't a lot of need for an article actually about the route - most of the 'route' information is actually poorly organized and would be better as a contextual history. I can do that, but it'll take time. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with that. I wasn't aware of that limit. I apologize for the inconvenience there. Epic Genius (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a re-split is needed. There is actually a lot of Green Line history to cover, and this main article will become even more unwieldy if the History section is properly enhanced. Combining the separate portal and route articles with the yet-to-be-written Boylston Street Subway article would give us a nice coherent narrative of manageable size, tied together with a historical route map which would make things much easier to understand. I would bet that the Boston Street Railway Association has published at least one good reference book on the subject, but with the sudden demise of the State Transportation Library, I don't know where to find their stuff anymore.

I wouldn't call it Route of the MBTA Green Line, since it is an unlikely search term for most readers, but rather something like MBTA history (Green Line). Reify-tech (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What's necessarily wrong with keeping the title as History of the MBTA Green Line? If it's properly written to present a coherent narrative of the history of the Green Line and its various routes over time, I don't see any reason why we necessarily need a new title. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because a history of the components is not a history of the total of the Green Line. It describes the components, like the Tremont Street Subway, Boylston Street Subway, Huntington Avenue Subway, Causeway Street Elevated, and Lechmere Viaduct, thus the suggested name "Route of the MBTA Green Line". Epic Genius (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing a wholesale rewrite of the history section. The individual details of the infrastructure largely belong on their own pages; the common thread really is the history and the various portals and whatnot will fit very well into a full article on that. But that's a major-length article - probably at least 5,000 words - and will take me a while to do. So for the moment until I can write that, I think the current situation is fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Tremont Street Subway, Boylston Street Subway, Huntington Avenue Subway. Causeway Street Elevated, and Lechmere Viaduct articles should be about those specific pieces of infrastructure and their history; they should not attempt to combine with or replace histories of the Green Line / streetcar system as a whole. (Huntington will get a split once I have enough to separate that specific tunnel from the history of the E as a whole). A lot of this, honestly, may be best done by giving me a little bit of time to get the basic articles in place and not worrying too much yourselves right now. I have a lot of reference material that isn't easily available elsewhere, but I can't get it all done at once. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the templates, I've temporarily commented out the full history RDT until the re-split. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what you come up with. I'm just glad that this longstanding deficiency is finally being addressed. Reify-tech (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green Line (MBTA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Great source!

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

New articles

Can there be new wiki pages for the Type 7 and Type 8 Cars? RedProofHill123 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

RedProofHill123 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Well if theres a article for S70 and R46 and some others, all trains need articles. Thats wikipedia. Also Type 7 and Type 8 cars have great history to it. Boston has very good history about its trains. So thats why they need articles.

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)

RedProofHill123 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)They are notable because stocks in Boston have history to them and its the first subway in America. I think almost all train should have a article to them.

Central subway (Boston)

There is a discussion at Talk:Central subway (Boston)#Subway capitalization that relates to recent edits here that would capitalise "central subway (Boston)".

I also note that central subway (Boston) has been nominated for deletion. My observation is that: if the subway is not sufficiently notable to have its own article, then it is not sufficiently notable in the collective consciousness to be recognised as a proper name and capitalised. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought, but I worry about the contrapositive, suggesting that anything with a proper name is notable. So whether the article is deleted or not, we should follow the advice of MOS:CAPS and treat it as a proper name if the great majority of sources do, and not otherwise (and they don't). Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The converse does not necessarily follow. "Bill Smith" is a proper name but my friend, Bill Smith, is not notable (per WP). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"Central Subway" is a proper name and is treated as such in a majority of reliable, independent sources. In particular, it is universally capitalized in the sources that discuss it in the most detail. I nominated the separate article for deletion because having it as a separate article effectively duplicates existing articles - Green Line for the service information, and Tremont Street Subway and Boylston Street Subway for the infrastructure - and Dicklyon created it solely as a POV fork. The article in its current state contains no information not already found in other articles - and it never will contain any information that's not better placed in existing articles.

Explaining what the Central Subway is early in this article, without need for the separate article, allows reuse of the name to streamline wording elsewhere in the article. This is not a binary choice between "so important it needs a separate article" and "so trivial it shouldn't be mentioned at all" - the reality is in between. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The capitalization discussion and the deletion discussion are at different places, not here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

And if you have "sources that discuss it [the Central Subway] in the most detail", I'd love to see those. In particular, sources that predate the "Green Line" branding are in short supply. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Schematic error

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)

Incidents and accidents section

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)

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)

Possibly false piece in article

I'm pretty sure that I've seen the MBTA run one-car trains during weekday hours. Maybe outdated source? AriTheHorse^{Talk to me!} 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Note the wording of the article: scheduled use. 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)