Talk:Skybridge (TransLink)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Skybridge (TransLink) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Skybridge (TransLink) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: "The Buzzer" (PDF). www.translink.ca. BC Transit. January 13, 1989. Retrieved February 23, 2020. "The Buzzer" (PDF). www.translink.ca. BC Transit. September 22, 1989. Retrieved February 23, 2020. "The Buzzer" (PDF). www.translink.ca. BC Transit. November 3, 1989. Retrieved February 23, 2020.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Canada: British Columbia / Vancouver Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This article is supported by WikiProject Vancouver (assessed as Mid-importance). Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs cleanup, since at the end of every single sentence there is a 'citation needed' warning

Every single one of those statements needs a citation. I'd put a "This article needs citations" message up and do away with all the "citation needed" tags, but someone removed that very same message before, and I'm not in the mood for a revert war. Anonymous 57 07:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

1. Most of the things listed here are common knowledge and thus don't need a citation. See
   WP:CITE
   .
2. Adding {{
   disrupting Wikipedia to make a point
   , which is strongly discouraged.
3. I admire your goal of making Wikipedia better referenced, but the best way to do that is to jump in and find references for topics that you know about, not adding {{
   cn
   }} to everything. Even for something like this, you shouldn't have a big problem finding citations online.

Anyway, I've rolled back your edit. JYolkowski // talk 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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/vancouver/vancouver3.html

  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.—

@Joeyconnick: SkyBridge (British Columbia) or SkyBridge (Metro Vancouver)?

I don't know if the dab for this article necessarily needs to match that of TransLink (British Columbia) given that it's about transit infrastructure and not transit service. Given that Template:Bridges of Metro Vancouver is embedded at the bottom of the page, I don't think too many readers would be confused to where "Metro Vancouver" is and "Vancouver" alone has huge name recognition. Previous discussion —Northwest (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a request to move the article? I don't think it's necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz I think it stems from the notion that "(TransLink)" is not a super-recognizable terms outside transit circles or Lower Mainland locals.

@Northwest: well unsurprisingly I haven't changed my mind re: "Metro Vancouver". I would rather move the template to "Bridges of Greater Vancouver", honestly, and go with "SkyBridge (Greater Vancouver)". But of the two, I think "SkyBridge (British Columbia)" is best... yes, both New West and Surrey are in Metro/Greater Vancouver but again, if we're going by something similar to CANSTATION, province makes the most sense if city doesn't work. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thought of a reader having an issue differentiate between "Metro Vancouver" and "Greater Vancouver" hadn't crossed my mind earlier. On second thought, yeah, "British Columbia" is the better dab. When following

WP:CANSTATION; shouldn't SkyTrain (Vancouver) instead be SkyTrain (British Columbia) or could the dab be dropped altogether if there's a case for it? —Northwest (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Joeyconnick: I had incorrectly assumed it was blatantly obvious to anyone who had bothered to read the references that they were not added to verify the name of a bridge, but as an early reliable source for a contributor to use when undertaking the next major redraft of this page. Naturally, such a person would be shuffling around all existing and later references accordingly, rather than myself, since the subject is not within my ambit of interests.DMBanks1 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add

WP:OVERREFs to an article when {{refideas}} exist. When no edit summary other than " add references", it looked to me as though it was the addition of references as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@DMBanks1: a (much) better place for references like that is the article's talk page, not cluttering up the first sentence of the article. I think there's even a template for "potentially useful in the future references". —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyconnick: The single notation character remains a single notation character, so cluttering is not a relevant point. For those readers who actually read these references, there is an opportunity to compensate for the content deficiencies of the page. Your talk page suggestion may well be technically accurate, but like most contributors, I would not be plowing through the talk pages to identify useful references when redrafting a page. As for this article, I did actually read the non-Buzzer references. Even taking the content of all of them combined, they comprise far less useful information than the 4 Buzzer ones, which is one reason for the mediocre standard of the page. However, I am not prone to making hasty deletions of such weak reference material. We can only hope someone will not now be at a disadvantage from augmenting the Buzzer references with some proper research to create an improved page.DMBanks1 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMBanks1:. I have now added the refideas based on your earlier comment . You should have done so and not added the OVERREFS. You're welcome.

Yet now you're changing your story.

There was no hasty deletion of the content. The addition was unnecessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]