Talk:METRORail
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Houston, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the city of Houston. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Maybe images shouldn't be tabled, but the layout is broken on my computer without it... RADICALBENDER★ 04:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Article Move / Merge Proposal
I have created a proposal at: User:Johntex/Proposal. I hope you will go there to comment on it, but I paste a copy here for your convenience:
I propose:
(1) We create a new article titled Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy
(2) We move the content from Houston_Chronicle#Light_Rail_memorandum_controversy to that page and leave only a sentence or two there to point to the new main article. This is advantageous because:
- (2.1) The overall Houston Chronicle article is unbalanced because there is more information about a few controversies concerning the paper than the paper itself - however, the paper is not famous for these controversies so this is misleading.
- (2.2) This controversy is largely or completely a thing of the past and to keep it occupying such a prominent position on the main article of an ongoing business concern is particularly unencyclopedic.
(3) We move the content from Texans for Public Transportation to Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy and delete Texans for Public Transportation. I believe Texans for Public Transportation is not sufficiently notable to merit an article here because:
- (3.1) The group was a single purpose organization, organized for a particular purpose in 2003
- (3.2) They have not had a wide impact nor achieved sufficient notability to merit their own article, as evidenced in part by the low number of hits found by searching for "Texans for Public Transportation" on Google (0)[1], Altavista (4 - including 1 at Wikipedia)[2]. I know Rangerdude does not like Google counts, but it is completely reasonable to conclude that a PAC in this Internet-driven era that gets only 4 hits did not achieve much impact.
- (3.3) Due to their small impact, there is little we can say about them. What we can say about them is really relevant to one specific controversy concerning METRORail
- (3.4) They do not have any presence today so they are not likely to get more interesting in the future.
(4) We move the content from Texans for True Mobility and delete Texans for True Mobility. My reasoning is similar to Texans for Public Transportation. Although Texans for True Mobility does have an active web page, and is slightly better known (237 hits on Google[3], 264 on Altavista[4]), that is still a paltry number of hits for an organization striving to make an impact on events in one of the America's largest cities. There does not seem to be anything that needs to be said about them that cannot be covered in the new article I am proposing.
In order to keep all comments together, I hope you will put your feedback at: User:Johntex/Proposal. Thank you. Johntex 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I am of the belief that for the time being we should work out the remaining issues on the Houston Chronicle page before merging any article or moving them to a second page. Right now that may only complicate things further, though in the future it may be an option. Furthermore, there is more to be said about TTM and TPT than the Houston Chronicle memorandum issue. IOW, some of the information currently present on this article does not neatly fit into an article specific to the Houston Chronicle. Thus I would propose (1) an article specifically on the Chronicle's memo scandal and (2) an article on the METRORail expansion campaign of 2003 with subsections containing the info on TTM and TPT and redirects from TTM/TTP to the respective locations in that article. Again, I do not think it is yet timely to start this reorganization with other things unresolved though so hold off for the moment. As a second note, I will mention that I do not see how this article proposal substantially impacts the METRORail article itself other than to change around the links pending the outcome we decide. Rangerdude 01:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] University Line color
What color is the University Line?? Georgia guy 00:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Metro Crash Rate
I believe that the links to the political web site, "Wham-Bam-Tram Collision Counter" should be removed. The crash rate should be mentioned but the neutrality needs to be looked at further. --Texaswebscout 12:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Replaced link. You ask about neutrality in a discussion setting, but remove the link BEFORE it is discussed. Be patient...
I thought links do not have to be NPOV. WhisperToMe 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that removing before there is discussion creates problems. i also believe RJN/Sarbox/Texaswebscout may be a possible sockpuppets (multiple accounts) RJN/Sarbox sure had a quick revisions from mine. all within 3 or so minutes from a supposedly "two" different users...convienent
I am not Texaswebscout or Sarbox. It is called keeping an article on the watch list. That is how I know when you edit and will be watching all of your dubious edits from now on.-RJN 00:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC) User:Urban909 has violated the 3RR within 24 hours. -RJN 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyways, if i "should be blocked" for the 3rr, then shouldn't sarbox and texaswebscout as well? just curious why YOU are singling me out. how about this, seeing that you are so caught up in taking away so called NPOV, maybe you should remove the entire "controversies page" because, if you remove the "wham bam" (note the next word) CONTROVERSY, then will you calm down a little? i mean, that section has it all, Texans for True Mobility, Texans for Public Transportation, and even something from the houston chronicle, which, if i might add all seem along the same lines as the "wham bam" addition...
I have restored the article to revision made on 00:26, 19 December 2005 WhisperToMe . Are you satisfied now Urban909 aka 70.XX. –RJN 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
yes i am. and trying to be sneaky with the 70.xx is nonsequential. i sometimes forget to log in. good to see that UH has raised the bar...
It's just when an editor places a tag (regardless of what it is), you shouldn't just take it down without explanation and discussion. I don't know what goes on here since I don't bother to edit or even read this article. The reason why I reverted your changes because you keep deleting things people put that you dont like. Now, I dont agree with the tag that Texaswebscout had put, but that doesn't mean I am going to take it off. That tag was put there to resolve a dispute on the talk page. Instead, you never resolve anything on the talk page or leave an edit summary. You just go ahead and quietly take it off thinking that other people don't click the "dif" to see what you have done, especially when you don't leave an edit summary. You have taken other people's work off simply because you dont like what they did many times, including mine. You used to take things out of the Houston article without explanation back when you first signed up for an account. To this day, you still delete other people's edits without explanation or taking it to the talk page. I never delete anyone's work even though I dont like some of it! RJN 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I am Texaswebscout, I am a real person. I lived in the Houston area all my life and I know people worked on the METRO project. I am no longer in the Houston area. From what I understand, the tag needs to stay on the page until everyone agrees on the page. --Texaswebscout 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I would just like to add that I've lived in the Houston area my entire life and have never before heard METRORail referred to as the "Wham-Bam-Tram". --Blathersby 11:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Link to article
The link to the article at the Houston Chronicle shows a page full of gibberish (I believe the technical term is garbage.) There are links to other articles, some of which seem to discuss METRORail safety. I would like to see links to the specific data crticizing METRORail's safety record.
[edit] Bias
I removed the Bias page tag and just added the section bias tag to the sections I believe are somewhat bias. I believe we need to present both sides of the issues. There was a lot of controversy around the METROrail partly because Houston loves a good old fashion scandal. A lot of the people against it where against it because they where afraid of bigger goverment. People love to drive there cars in Houston and anything that may encroach on that right makes them mad. --Texaswebscout 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I did some playing around with editing the two sections that has been flagged as bias. i HOPE this will clear some things up and make everyone satisfied with the section. Urban909
- It is not really just the bias, the article needs to be cited especially controversial sections. Please cite the article with citations from credible sources. --Ben 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for map proposal
I would like to see a map of the METRORail system drawn for the article. If anyone can do one, please feel free to do it. MattFisher 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I will work on one should be done 2/8/2006, --Ben 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Map Done, Needs a little more work to make in look just right in svg but basic done. --Ben 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for ridership and overall neutrality
I would like to see some more information on the ridership and success of the METRORail system on a riders per mile basis for the article. I think that the information is available, but didn't want to add it without some additional thoughts. Thanks! --Jsabs 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
