From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / Streetcars / Rapid transit(Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
Trains Portal
DYKAugust 1, 2013
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
C-Class article C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Oregon(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.
C-Class article C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the week are Pacific Northwest College of Art & Gutenberg College.


It will look better if a references section is added and in-line refs are converted to footnotes. Aboutmovies 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's been done, but I've tagged the article as all but one of the footnote references is from TriMet, and the other is a primary source itself from the state. Need refs from places like the newspapers, magazines, or even books. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New Infobox[edit]

There's now a slick infobox. Woohoo! Alphalife (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Map at Picture Peer Review[edit]

FYI, I have sent my map that's in the article to Picture Peer Review. --Jason McHuff (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms section[edit]

I've begun destroying the criticisms section and merging it into the rest of the article. The article kinda sucks, so the article as a whole needs to be expanded while we work on removing the criticisms section. I'm not overjoyed with the changes I've made, so that's where you come in to throw in your wiki sense! Alphalife (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments wanted on MAX, Streetcar maps[edit]

I have made maps of the MAX Light Rail and Portland Streetcar systems and submitted them to Picture Peer Review. If anyone would like to, feel free to comment on them there. Thanks, Jason McHuff (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I have sent the MAX map to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates (see the discussion on it here) and have decided to place it in the MAX article. Jason McHuff (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[edit]

I added the follwing

which was immediately reverted due to an "external links" policy violation. Reading the policy, I'm still not sure how this applies. Anyone? SkyDot (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the links to be avoided at WP:EL, here are my objections:
  • 2: this is does not look like a reliable source, it looks more like a blog
  • 11: this looks more like a personal web page
  • And even number one applies, as I don't think this is a unique source. Its a gripe site. Machines break, it happens. The government underfunds infrastructure and roads deteriorate, it happens. ATM machines break, it happens. But Wikipedia is not here to promote sites complaining about these topics, it is here to provide encyclopedic information. If this is a big problem (and I vaguely recall it being so and have had the misfortune of this happening to me a few times) it will be in the local media, and those sources can be used for the same purpose. And those sources are clearly WP:RS. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I found that site via a pointer from a news article. This problem has been in the news quite a lot this year. I think a blurb belongs in a "criticisms" section, but someone seems to have deleted that section on purpose. I'm not sure it belongs in a top-level section on its own, so what would you suggest? SkyDot (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The info certainly belongs in an article, but it should really be in the MAX Light Rail article, not here. And there should not be "criticisms" section in the article, as they are seen as "undue" and much as "awards" for the same reason should be spread out. I think the best approach would be that a standard "History" section be added to the MAX article, which would include the basic timeline for the lines, plus info on the "crime wave" this past summer (a sentence or two) and the info about the machines using The Oregonian article that mentions the website above, along with any other news stories of note over the nearly 30 year history of light rail in Portland (i.e. a note about being shutdown due to the ice storm seems relevant along with various awards/accolades and ridership numbers over the years). Aboutmovies (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the ticket machines are all at MAX stops, but the problem is really with Tri-Met. I can see how it might be relevant to both. SkyDot (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

2400-series buses retired[edit]

The last three 2400-series buses have been retired. The last day of use of any of them in service was August 1. I favor leaving them in the bus fleet list in the article — with a transitional phrase, which I've added there — for a month or two, after which time I intend to delete them (if there are no objections to this plan). The Washington Park Shuttle is using 1900-series buses now. SJ Morg (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


The lede is too short, and the timeline needs to be converted into prose. That is, make it a history section and move it up as it should be the first section of the article after the lede, and incorporate parts of the "General" section into it. Also, we no longer do much in the way of left aligned images (WP:MOSIMAGE) and text should not be squeezed between images or templates. There also appears to be a fair amount of one-sentence paragraphs, the "service district" section needs something done of either converting it to prose or re-doing it as the indent on the Portland see also looks bad (not sure why there are see alsos there in general as these items are covered elsewhere and not particularly relevant to the district service area), not sure why WES has its own section (already linked to under rail lines and the other lines do not have there own stand-alone sections), and there is no need to start section headers with "TriMet" on the TriMet page. But it is looking better, and these are more cosmetic than substantive changes. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good comments and advice. I'll try to deal with a few of these soon, but I won't have time to do much on this during October (at least). Hopefully, I won't be the only person (besides you, Aboutmovies) willing to work on this! I agree that the "timeline" section needs to be converted into prose and moved up, but from the perspective of someone whose Wikipedia editing time is very limited, that is a big project (and there's no going halfway - once it's started, it has to be finished soon afterward and ideally will involve moving certain points into new sections, such as one about the fare system), so that is definitely not something I'll have time for in the foreseeable future. But at least I've made it a little easier for anyone who wants to tackle that, by having added (over the past two months) citations for many of the items in that list. I didn't realize that left-aligned images were generally being avoided now. To my eye, it often looks better to alternate between left- and right-aligned images (if they are not large), so I had been doing that consciously when a section had more than one image, but if that's out of sync with what others are standardizing on, then I'll consider changing my practice. I was already figuring this article was likely not good enough for B class yet, but it was clearly now well beyond its last assessment, of Start class. Addressing one or two of your other points specifically: The separate section for WES (not added by me) is a subsection of the "Fleet" section, same as the subsections for Buses and MAX. Still, WES is such a small operation that its fleet-only section here is tiny and is mainly just a link to the WES article, which has detailed fleet info.; deleting it wouldn't be unreasonable. Personally, I have no problem leaving it here, as a Fleet subsection, but I don't think it deserves a photo, so I intend to delete that. I do believe that the other two sections under Fleet are worthy of inclusion. The Bus section is not covered in any other article, and the MAX fleet info. given in this article is a sufficiently condensed snapshot of the key points as to merit inclusion here, even though more detailed coverage can be found in the MAX article. SJ Morg (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
No rush, and others might join in at some point. A few notes on what might work for structure/content moving forward:
That's it for my thoughts. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations and dollars[edit]

I JUST WANNA KNOW IF A trimet citation SHOULD HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON IT??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused what you are asking. Are you asking if dollar amounts should be cited? If so, then yes. tedder (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

TriMet Route History[edit]

I'd like to follow up on this as to say: in 1993, there was also a Line 153 which appears to be a shuttle line serving Molalla, south of the Clackamas Community College campus, assuming the same route Line 33 had in its occasional peak-hour trips south of the college. That's according to the TriMet System Map (see the Oregon City inset) dated September 5, 1993.

Line 87-Washington Square/Beaverton was a peak-hour shuttle service that served between the Washington Square mall and the former 1979-built Beaverton Transit Center via Murray Blvd., assuming much of the same route as today's Line 62-Murray Blvd. This was one of seven daytime routes cancelled after September 7, 1986 (#46-Maplewood and #49-Arnold Creek were others) as part of that year's budget cuts.

While Line 40-Johns Landing is made mention of in the January 1984-dated Fareless Square map, I'd like to think this route and all other "new" routes covered in this map had actually begun service September 4, 1983.

That same map also witnessed the temporary closure of the Steel Bridge and the permanent relocation of all cross-mall routes from Morrison (westbound) and Yamhill (eastbound) streets to Washington (westbound) and Salmon (eastbound) streets, so that the inaugural MAX Blue Line's tracks could be built. The Troutdale (#18) and Gresham (then #24) lines continued service via I-84 to and from Portland through June of '84, at which point the latter line was discontinued, while the former gained new service to the Hollywood District assuming the same route as then Line #40-Halsey to 67th, then using Tillamook between 67th and 92nd, and then back on Halsey and the rest of its regular eastbound route. I also notice Line #18 in that map also goes somewhere south of 5th Avenue (presumably to SW 1st & Arthur), since it appears to go off the map.

WikiPro1981X (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted this section (and replaced it with more appropriate content), because it is completed unreferenced, as well as being excessive detail – very excessive (consuming about half of the page) – for inclusion in the general TriMet article. It was a good faith addition by a new editor, so I left what I believed was a tactful explanation on his talk page when I first deleted it (a week ago), but he quickly reverted the edit and blanked-out the message I'd left, without giving any reply or comment. So, this time, I am leaving a message here, and I hope others will comment. As I wrote earlier on that user talk page, this "route history" may be appropriate for inclusion in the article List of TriMet bus routes, but I don't want to be the person who moves it to there, because personally I believe the content does not belong on Wikipedia until and unless acceptable references are added, and currently it has none. An anonymous editor tried to cite "Published TriMet schedules and system route maps" as a source, but that is not a suitable source for Wikipedia, because it fails the requirement for verifiability. TriMet schedules are not permanently archived anywhere (such as TriMet's website or a public library), and therefore information given in past editions cannot be verified. Route information currently available on TriMet's website certainly does meet WP:RS, but this only works for current routes, because the agency doesn't (publicly) archive that information for former routes. SJ Morg (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Please stop deleting this section. It takes me a lot of time and effort to reload it each time. I believe that your sited reasons for deleting it are not accurate according to the Wikipedia rules. Also, you do not control the content of this page. This is a forum for all to post accurate information about TriMet. Where I have uncertainty about a start / end date, I've placed a ~ (approximately) mark. Over time, I plan to link each noted route with a scanned copy of that route's map from my TriMet timetable collection. I've been trying to communicate with you via e-mail, but you no longer seem to be at (redacted). My email address is Thanks and best regards, Colin Wheeler — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFWheeler (talkcontribs) 20:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi CFWheeler. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please keep in mind Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In other words, it isn't a place to post all information, but a good overview of TriMet. Excessively long lists of facts may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, even if they are verified. In this case, you should probably read about Alternative outlets to post this type of information other than Wikipedia. As far as 'filing a complaint with Wikipedia', there are many noticeboards. I'd suggest starting at the Teahouse, which provides a way for newer editors to receive support. tedder (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The content discussed here has now been relocated to the article List of TriMet bus routes (which is linked from the general TriMet article), and any further discussion of whether it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion should take place on that article's talk page, rather than here. SJ Morg (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-serving references[edit]

Lets take this reference from the article for example. There is nothing negative or self-critical. To me it seems to resemble a press release. As a simple yes or no test please read only the first paragraph and tell me if it passes criteria one of

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Shortcut: WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1.the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

That is my contention with swaths of this article. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The link also claism that 84 percent of riders are "choice riders". Meaning they have a vehicle and willingly use trimet. Well, I am one of the 16 percent. That sounds like a lofty claim if you ask me and would require a third party source. That would invalidate the entire "factsheet" being used as such. Yes I used scare quoutes because the factsheet is very self serving and has an exceptional claim.

Yes thats grand. just revert my edits without coming on here to explain yourself.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, people are just reverting your edits; multiple editors are reverting your edits; nobody but you is re-inserting them. You might want to think about what that means. To try to help the newbie, that usually means the sole editor with an "agenda" is in the minority, which means WP:CONSENSUS is for how the article basically was. My guess, is that the other editors like me are simply hoping you will get the clue/hint without needing to address you, as frankly it is a waste of time and makes editing unpleasant. You do not yet get Wikipedia, once you do, then maybe we will engage you. As to 3RR, that was the warning that if you continued to revert you might find yourself blocked.
Seriously, look at your edits, who but TriMet is going to know how many this or that they have; then why did you remove the field for the website from the infobox? You clearly hate TriMet, so perhaps you should avoid editing articles related to them. Otherwise, despite your contentions above about TriMet's fact sheet, the fact sheet does not run afoul of SELFPUBLISH, as what you are talking about are not the exceptional type of claims we are talking about, and though we could not use the opening sentence as the "nationally" bit would be somewhat exceptional (really just puffry), the remainder is sound for what it is. Really think about this, where else are you going to get this kind of data? For comparison, we get the data about company's revenues from them, though often as reported in a third-party source, but the ultimate source is the company, nobody else has the data but the companies and there accountants. Now, yes, the feds have it too, but that is because the company reported it to them, which is why you can have accounting scandals like Enron and MCI. As in, if that data just existed for anyone to pick off of Ye Ol' Tree of Data, then there would never be accounting scandals. Which for the purposes of this discussion about TriMet means despite being self-published, the data is as reliable is we can get, and they would be experts on themselves, thus the sources are fine. I do not believe the sources are being used to say TriMet is the world's largest transit agency, or some other exceptional claim. Implicitly, SJ Morg must believe the same as to the appropriateness of the TriMet sources, but I leave it to them to chime in. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to revert to the last version by Aboutmovies and to proceed from there. The idea is to improve the article. The usual method of doing this for well-developed articles is to boldly make minor changes that are not likely to be controversial among involved editors. For large-scale changes, it is generally better to discuss them with the group before making them. Removing citations and adding a "citation needed" tag in their place is not likely to be approved by consensus. Asking for help in fixing dead URLs would probably meet with approval. And so on. Finetooth (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If only trimet knows their info then maybe it shouldnt be included? Me hate Trimet? No. I just want to include significant news events that have involved trimet. The fact that people have been killed due to driver negligence should not go unmentioned. So it is ok to include info that is unsourced? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You mention "well developed articles". surely you dont refer to this one? Do you expect it do develop past a c rating, or pass muster for GA or FA with self sourcing and 404 errors? FYI i do not care if you engage me. And i'm not particularly concerned with the finer details. But you cannot silence the published truth. Especially when it is written in a paper that fact checks. Not some self published pdf. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Nobody has a problem with dead links being fixed. I doubt too many people think significant issues such as the pedestrians being run over, drivers kicking people off buses, the one that was reading or something like that while driving, or even the one in Hillsboro that rammed the fire truck should not be included. They need to be given proper weight, but inclusion is not really that big of an issue. But that is not what this section and the problem is here, now is it? Your problem was using TriMet as a source. So, if we are done with that topic, then we can move on to things like bad bus drivers and dead links or what ever your "agenda" has moved on too. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I wager that over the years the amount of deaths attributed to trimet vehicles could warrant its own subsection or something more prominent to list them all.I'm not trying to imply that Trimet is a pack of murderers or anything. I would just hate to see the fact that there are quite a few deaths attributed to trimet swept under the rug. Then there are these parents suing trimet for negligence involving the sexual assault of a 14 year old girl by a trimet driver on his bus route. incident. Are you saying that 14 year old girl is not important? Trimet has garnered tons of controversy over the years. Even for having lavish employee benefits to the tune of 1900 a month. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Trimet has also been the subject of lawsuits here and here. So it would be the truth if I said that Trimet has been on the receiving end of several lawsuits over the years.

I agree with everything that Aboutmovies and Finetooth have written here. I've been reluctant to chime in for very reason AM identified correctly, that I'd be trying to reason with someone who, it seems to me, cannot be reasoned with. In another discussion elsewhere on WP, one that had nothing to do with TriMet, PO even went so far as to state that he doesn't really care what anyone else thinks.
To PO: Nobody here has objected to adding information critical of TriMet, if phrased in a neutral way (unlike your comments here), properly sourced, and not given excessive coverage, but as AM noted in his last post, that was not the problem. The problem was your deletion of everything sourced to TriMet. If someone is going to allege that a public agency is lying about all kinds of things, even such mundane things as how many buses it has, the burden of proof is on that person. One sentence of puffery in a fact sheet does not in any way lead logically to the conclusion that everything else TriMet says is biased. As everyone else here has told you, using TriMet's own data for basic descriptive information and statistics if perfectly OK as long it meets WP:SELFSOURCE, which it does for the types of information included in the Wikipedia article and sourced to TriMet. (You'll say it doesn't, but the consensus clearly overrules you.) All major media sources accept TriMet at its word for the types of information included in this article, but which you've been deleting. SJ Morg (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WHile I still maintain that it is in poor form and would not pass muster for FA I will back away from the small details since you all must have them. Who cares what size the rails are or what the name of the car model is? I almost feel as if there are people with aspbergers on here(not this article. But wikipedia in general) who must have the most remote technical detail entrenched for reasons unknown to them. Anyways yeah I am for all the proper citing and such and neutral presentation of them. I am sure you will all help me with that as far as judging what is and isnt a npov. Anyways I was working on this other article so this one will have to wait till tommorow for those citation hookups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talkcontribs) 07:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh and Sj morg: you misunderstood when I said I didnt care what anyone thinks. I mean that in regards to movies talking about my needing to gain the respect of the people on here. In that regard I could care less what your personal opinion is of me or whatever I have to say. Now I by defualt have to care when it comes to what goes on articles. duh! Thats what happens when you completely write people off, the way I have written movies off for his personal attack on me on the page you like to mention. I mean I have a job working 30+ hrs a week, internship, wife. Why would I really pay any attention to these longwinded non succinct arguements movies was trying to pass my way on the "other page" PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Those two things cannot be completely separated. The manner in which someone edits articles (including what they add or delete and why) affects how that editor is viewed by other editors. Although I don't want to put words in his mouth, I think that's the kind of respect Aboutmovies was talking about, respect for the quality of your editing and your opinions about how articles should be edited. That's completely relevant. By the way, a request (not a requirement): Please indent each new message on any talk page by prefacing it with one-colon-more than however many colons the immediately prior post started with. That's the usual practice on all talk pages and makes them easier to read. The columns become successively narrower in long discussions, but can be widened back out to the left margin when they've become too narrow, using Template:Outdent. SJ Morg (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Additional comment to PortlandOregon97217: Your reply three posts back ("While I still maintain ....") was actually off-topic. This discussion, which you started, was about whether TriMet is a reliable source for information about itself. In your post above, you suggested that the only reason you made all those deletions is that you considered the information trivial. That is not the reason you gave for any of those deletions (well, except for one time, out of many deletions), and much of the information you deleted was not trivial at all, for example this edit. SJ Morg (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether or not TriMet's own publications can be used in this article is an easy one: of course they can. They simply have to be used judiciously. PortlandOR, your recent deletions are not justified, not without discussion and consensus. -Pete (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Note for the record: The editor identified above as user "PortlandOregon97217" is the same editor whose edits are now identified in the page history as being by "Vanished user svoinsr8wiraekfiu3rhnsfvr4sb", after that editor evidently chose to vanish. SJ Morg (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)