Talk:T Third Street

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the T Third Street 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.

Article policies

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

Trains: Rapid transit / Streetcars Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	September 9, 2010

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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars (assessed as Mid-importance).

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:T Third Street.

Through-running with K Line?

Initially, I had heard that this line was essentially going to be an extension of the K line -- K trains would change their signs to T at West Portal, and vice-versa. Is this no longer the case? --Jfruh (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They planned to change the signs from K to T and vice versa at Castro (maybe West Portal), but apparently (as the newest sources tell) they have decided against it. No one really knows until January 13, 2007 (and I might ride it on that day, as I live a few blocks from the T). --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest announcements from MUNI state it will replace the Castro Shuttle instead and run from Castro to Bayshore, the K would remain as is. hateless 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this will actually happen now to fix some of the problems the T has caused

[1], K trains will become T trains at West Portal, and the T will become the K at Embarcadero. Octoferret 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-Third, or T-Third Street?

I keep seeing it written differently in different places, on some of the stickers they've put up I think it's called the "T-Third Street", but on Muni's web site, it's rather annoyingly all caps "T-THIRD." Is the offical name really "T-Third Street" with "T-Third" used as shorthand? At Powell Station at least, they put the sticker for the T-Line before the J-Line. Leave it to Muni to screw up something as simple as alphabetical order.

Muni also writes them out in most places as the letter/number, then a dash and the line name. Seeing all the lines labelled without dashes just looks wrong to me.

On the sign at the front of the train, it says T Third Street, as shown in the logo in the article. —lensovet–talk – 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4th and King station

The article notes that the T Third uses a station at 4th and King that is separate from the one that the N Judah has used since the Embarcadero extension opened. What will become of the older station? Will it be used by the J during rush hour? --Jfruh (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just speculating, but probably so, as there is a switchback beyond the older King and 4th station. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that a safety hazard was created by the location of the new station. During rush hour, passengers must shuffle back and forth across a busy intersection (with two traffic lights and often jaywalk) in order to intercept the next train (if they discover that it's arriving at the other platform). Muni made a big error by not consolidating the two stations on the eastern side of King and Fourth. --Inetpup 23:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platform 2 inches too high

First off the article "Are New Muni Platforms A Safety Risk?" is used twice as a source but reported as if it was two different sources. Secondly, I would like to point out that the Muni official quoted in the article does not actually validate the claims of the ABC article and the way it is quoted here is misleading. If no one objects in the next few weeks I will remove the part about the platform hights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.202.145 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this being deleted. Can I propose we rewrite it so that the quote is not misleading? Thanks.--Inetpup 23:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Station

As I mentioned in the edit, the T just began, and never served Eureka, and doesn't make sense to mention this station on the listing. However I feel the K, L, M are okay because they had served this station when it was still open, before Castro was built, and should me mentioned in the station listing. SFOetthekid 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason why User:71.141.117.207 and (possibly I) added it is because it goes by the abandoned station. And not only that, it is interrouted with the K Ingleside, so it does seem feasible. If you want to remove it, go right ahead. I don't care, but maybe others will (possibly.) Thank you for understanding and have a good evening. -Go od sh o p 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it goes by it, I guess it can stay on this article for now. I honestly feel that if someone who has never lived in San Francisco or the Bay Area in general would know of the existence of this station. SFOetthekid 00:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's true. And have you been to the waterfront recently on the T? -Go od sh o p 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Line Maps

Just a question for future reference, but just want to know, I noticed the line maps are now part of the infoboxes, I wanted to edit a part of it, but I can't seem to find it in the Edit page section. How are we going to be able to edit the maps say a change in service occurs?SFOetthekid (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Template:T Third Street. I'll add the links to it right now. -Go od sh op ed 05:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.SFOetthekid (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Train morphing (controversy)

I know this isn't the preferred term, but it seems to accurately capture the way the K/T is operated. I would like your suggestions for better terminology that we can use to describe the sudden change of the train's identity; hiding this information from the unwary Wikipedia reader would appear to be a disservice. I realize this operational quirk of the K/T is covered in the intro paragraph, but I believe such a confusing train 'interlink/interline/conjoining' is a controversy and should be covered as such. Also, there aren't many (any[?]) 'through running' lines (in other parts of the world) that are operated in an asymmetric manner. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about merging them into one article. It's pretty confusing now that Muni got this new map and all the inbound cars are T's and all the outbound ones are K's. It's visible at the station at Van Ness Avenue. BoL (Talk) 04:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should use some of these templates:

{{merge|OTHERPAGE| discuss=Talk:THIS PAGE#Merger proposal|date=July 2008}}
{{mergeto|DESTINATIONPAGE| discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=July 2008}}
{{mergefrom|SOURCEPAGE| discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=July 2008}}

from this article Help:Merging and moving pages to create a new page called the K/T Ingleside/Third or K Ingleside/T Third or something to that effect. We would need redirects from K Ingleside and T Third Street to that new page. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge. They are for all official purposes two distinct lines, even if the trains run on both. Our prior inability to explain the situation more clearly does not require us to merge the articles to avoid the problem (I think it would only cause more problems). Oh, and there is no single term for this unique situation, so it's not in our interests to coin a neologism when we can just describe the situation more succinctly. —Kurykh 04:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your support that we can add something to the controversies section to describe the K/T line, which has a 'split personality' (or maybe an 'identity crisis'). Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, I need an NPOV word to describe split personality disorder or identity crisis --Inetpup (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I just said, there is no such term. Simply describing the situation is sufficient. —Kurykh 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a clear consensus yet on the merge. So far, two (2) in favor of merge, and one (1) opposed to merge. --Inetpup (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the merge, I would also support merging the 30-something articles that explain the T-Third stations with the article. BoL (Talk) 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? —Kurykh 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, most of the stations along 3rd street are barely notable. Secondly, the K's with the T, although that would make it more confusing. BoL (Talk) 02:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Barely notable"? I don't see how they violate WP:N; if you want to show that they do violate WP:N, go ahead and show it. And no, stop thinking about merging the K and the T. It's not going to happen unless there's consensus (which obviously does not exist) or if Muni merges the two lines into one single line with one single designation. —Kurykh 02:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this system a "premetro"?

The premetro article contained a great deal of original research, and characterized a large number of light-rail or streetcar routes as "premetro" systems for questionable reasons -- like that the light-rail or streetcar system had a short tunneled section. More recently the premetro article has been scaled back, to only include systems that verifiable authoritative sources have called "premetro" systems.

Unfortunately dozens of questionable incoming links were made to the premetro article, from articles like this one, that didn't supply any references that verified systems like this one had ever been called premetro systems.

I am going to place a {{dubious}} tag next to all questionable claims that provide questionable incoming links to premetro.

If no authoritative references ever called this a "premetro" system that phrase should be removed from this article, link and all. Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Red Line (Muni Metro)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Red Line (Muni Metro) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Red Line (Muni Metro) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Red Line (San Francisco)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Red Line (San Francisco) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Red Line (San Francisco) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Muni Metro Red Line" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Muni Metro Red Line and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Muni Metro Red Line until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Red Line (San Francisco Muni Metro)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Red Line (San Francisco Muni Metro) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Red Line (San Francisco Muni Metro) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]