Talk:Link light rail

Land Use Impacts

@SounderBruce Re: Land Use Impacts, I agree that in text attribution is maybe unnecessary but think it would be helpful to at least include the source because it speaks to local land use impacts and the relationship between Link Light Rail and changing land use / transportation behaviors. Your thoughts? MarcusLeland (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There are better sources out there for the land-use impacts that Link has specifically affected; enabling students and workers to commute in from further out, more affordable housing is applicable to most transit systems and is thus unremarkable. This is a summary article for the system and should not be going into those kinds of details. SounderBruce 20:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you propose an additional article or? MarcusLeland (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Following up on this, by this metric would it not be logical then to remove this "By concentrating new development along light rail lines (a practice known as "transit-oriented development"), more people can live more densely without the increases in automotive commuting traffic that might otherwise be expected. In addition, the concentration of residents near stations helps maintain ridership and revenue. Climate change activists also point out that compact development around light rail lines has been shown to result in reductions in residents' CO2 emissions, compared to more conventional suburban automotive commutes." because it applicable to most transit systems and thus unremarkable. And not sure what you mean by better sources for land-use impacts Link has specifically affected. MarcusLeland (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't touched that section yet, so what is written there is entirely disposable to me until I get back to it. SounderBruce 07:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

Generally speaking think it is warranted to include this given that there are criticisms and ongoing issues / debate around Link Light Rail and starting a new article on this would split it up which is not conducive to Wiki policies. MarcusLeland (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

See the essay at WP:CRIT. A mixed bag section is to be avoided, and it's better to spread it out into appropriate sections. I'm hoping to take this article to GA and FA status in the near future when the dust settles on the Line 2 situation, so it'd be best to avoid making a mess out of things in the meantime. SounderBruce 22:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Read the essay. Understand you are looking to take the article to GA / FA status but do not think that the article should be compromised / watered down by excluding mention of valid criticism (disability access, technology / design choices, etc. ) in the interest of GA / FA article status. That said, I acknowledge that it would be best spread out into appropriate sections as the essay points out - when I have time I will work on incorporating this (understanding that for something like accessibility, this would require a section or similar on accessibility across the entire system). MarcusLeland (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Colored line route diagram templates and consolidating interactive maps in infoboxes

Recently, I've been adding line colors to the route diagram templates and interactive maps of many different public transport systems across the United States, as well as their individual line articles (like for example, what I've been doing on the articles for Los Angeles Metro Rail, etc.) and consolidating them all in the articles' infoboxes. I was curious if it would be fine for me to do it here, for the Link light rail system, and also adding interactive maps to the other public transportation systems like the Sounder commuter rail and others. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Link is a weird system with two (soon to be three) disconnected lines, so I don't think cramming the interactive map into the infobox is a good use of space at the moment. I would be opposed to throwing Sounder and other rail systems into the map, as Wikimedia Maps do a very poor job of showing legends or labels, so it would mislead readers into thinking Link includes those lines. SounderBruce 03:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough then.

Just to clarify though when I am referring to Sounder and the other rail systems, I don't mean to cram them all into one big interactive map, rather I was intending to create individual interactive maps for each of those systems (Sounder, the two streetcars, and the monorail). OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

A Sounder map would be helpful; the streetcars and monorail already have their own interactive maps. SounderBruce 04:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Here you go. Let me know if there's any changes that you'd like to see on it. I made the N Line red and the S Line blue just so readers can tell them apart. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@OrdinaryScarlett: The map looks good; I'll go ahead and change the colors a bit (since blue and red are both used by other transit lines in the region). I think it would be worthwhile to also move the existing monorail and streetcar maps to Commons, though they are in need of some code cleanup. SounderBruce 04:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Imported both the monorail and streetcar maps to Commons here. You'll have to forgive me for not being knowledgeable enough with coding, so I unfortunately don't have the expertise to help out in code cleanup for now, but hopefully that's half the battle out of the way. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Separate article for rolling stock

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to create a separate page for the "Link Light Rail" rolling stock. This would tidy up the main page and allow more thorough look into the details for those interested

As the system grows more and more cars will be ordered, with the 1, 2, and T line expansion in a few years I believe this section will soon become crowded making the overall article difficult to navigate.

Hope I can hear y'all's thoughts! matt. (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It might be best to have a general Sound Transit fleet article to also remove some clutter from the Sounder and ST Express articles. I've gone ahead and parked a redirect there, but I do have a draft from a few years ago in my userspace that I can revive. SounderBruce 04:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

that sounds like a really good idea! I'd love to help out :) matt. (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Same here. Sage or something (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Photo quality

I see that some of the photos are old, and some lacking quality. Might it be a good idea for me to venture out to Seattle and get more to add and replace old ones?

Sage or something (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

2 line section

Is it a good idea to add a section for the 2 line (opening on 27 april, 2024)?

Sage or something (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There already is a subsection that can be merged into the appropriate ones on April 27. SounderBruce 04:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

True. How should that be done?

Sage or something (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Static Map to Article in Line with Other Metro/Light Rail Networks in the World

Hi All - I'd like to have a static map of the link light rail system in the page. I think it would be more readable than the geographic map, and would align the Link's wikipedia page to the pages of other similar systems. I am thinking at these maps https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps

It would also be great to use a static map to show each Line individually in their respective sections and page (see Map section of the Paris Line 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_1) 2601:602:9603:AA90:A4F4:2E72:F3ED:D5CE (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sound Transit's maps are copyrighted, so they should not be added. A recreation with distinct elements would be fine, but would need to be updated with the next few rounds of expansion. SounderBruce 05:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Reliable source for the lead section.

Hello SounderBruce, I noticed you reverted my recent edit with a link added to MOS:CITELEAD. There it states that: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The line I added was neither of the three C's. Moreover the sources is about light rail, and should perfectly reliable when writing about light-rail systems. KatVanHuis (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@KatVanHuis: Light Rail Now is an advocacy group that self-publishes reports and is thus not a reliable source. As for the point about WP:LEADCITE, it is preferred that citations are not added to the lead unless the content they are citing is not present in the body. SounderBruce 05:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello SounderBruce, thank you for your quick reply.

• I'm aware that Light Rail Now is an advocacy group, but so is LRTA. The LRTA is a source used across Wikipedia to categorise networks around the world. Both organisations are not private persons who do self publishing. And both are reliable because light rail is their expertise and their only expertise.
• Indeed: that makes sense, yet I added content that wasn't cited in the remaining text of the article.
• Meanwhile the current claim that Link is a "light rail rapid transit" network, is contradicting. In 1972 the term "light rail" was chosen to distinguish urban rail systems from the ones that are classified as "heavy rail". On Wikipedia the term "rapid transit" was the chosen term to use for these "heavy rail" systems. This makes the first line of the article read: "Link light rail is a light rail heavy rail system serving the Seattle metropolitan area..." Let's try to fix this.

KatVanHuis (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no official authority on how systems are described; it is unclear what your statement about 1972 is referring to, but it really shouldn't apply to something built over 45 years later. I have added some clarification based on Times reporting, but there is no reliable sourcing that describes Link as a semi-metro. SounderBruce 04:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again SounderBruce and thank you for your efforts.

• The main authority is the UITP, but also the UN and national government bodies set boundaries on how to categorise transit systems. Unfortunately, most of this information is not available to the general public. Therefore Wikipedia contributors are using organisations like the APTA, LRTA and LRN (and regularly also UrbanRail.net) to decide which category to apply.
• In 1972 the term "light rail" was adopted: and since then it is applicable until further notice. Still up to date: "light rail" ≠ "heavy rail/rapid transit". So I'm glad to see that you made an attempt to fix it.
• The local newspaper indeed reported: Seattle’s network is an uncommon hybrid that fans sometimes call “light metro”, but how fans call it should not be leading for an article's lead.
• Meanwhile the current first sentence (Link light rail is a light rail system with light metro characteristics that serves the Seattle metropolitan area) is the perfect definition of a semi-metro. Summarised: semi-metro = light rail system with heavy metro/light metro characteristics.

KatVanHuis (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The policy on reliable sources is very clear. Anything objectionable has to have a citation to a reputable outlet. LRN is clearly not, so any definition that is only supported by a nearly 20-year-old blog post is not worth including. SounderBruce 07:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello SounderBruce, indeed the policy on reliable sources is very clear: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgement are an indispensable part of the process." To me it makes sense that members of a light rail advocacy group are experts on light rail systems and have the right background to be able to categorise individual light rail systems. And indeed more so than mainstream journalists.

• The policy continues: Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. You can see in the article light metros that the LRTA (a self publishing advocacy group) is chosen often to judge on the classification of systems.
• Please be aware that Link doesn't meet the requirements of a "light metro", and that it does meet the requirements of a "semi-metro".

PS: only repeating that something is "clearly not" is hardly helpful. I have explained myself; please explain yourself too as per Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct. KatVanHuis (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyering is not constructive and accusing other users of incivility is inflammatory behavior. The new source turns up no results on WorldCat (a first, in my experience) and would need to be extremely specific to be used in this situation. Neither of the presented sources would pass muster at GAN or FAC, which is the eventual goal here, and would be removed in the review process anyway. SounderBruce 17:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello SounderBruce, thank you for your quick reply. I will answer each point below.

• This is not wiki-lawyering. I'm only reviewing the policy on reliable sources; a policy that was presented to me on this Talk-page.
• Then allow me to rephrase my PS: only repeating that something is "clearly not" is hardly helpful. I have explained myself; please explain yourself too as per Wikipedia is the product of millions of editors' contributions.
• The new source starts with alternatives of rapid transit; one of these being semi-metro. Another page mentions that semi-metro can be an upgrade of a tram network. Page 46 gives international examples of light rail semi-metros (Seattle being one of them: presented with a photo) but also regular light rail systems. A fourth pages mentions details of the semi-metro concept; mostly pros and cons.
• The reviewers of GA-status or FA-status are allowed to review both sources in the near or far future.

KatVanHuis (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The new source seems to lift some information from Wikipedia, and thus might be a case of circular sourcing. It is best that these are avoided, as the origin may be original research. And once again, there are zero mentions of semi-metros in any Seattle-based news archives that I can find, whereas The Seattle Times has repeatedly used "light metro" to describe the characteristics of Link, such as in this comparison between light rail systems in the U.S. One of the core philosophies of sourcing on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; even if you believe something to be wrong, if verifiable and reliable sources disagree then we must follow the latter or exclude this information entirely. SounderBruce 19:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello SounderBruce, I will address each point:

• Circular sourcing couldn't have happened as both the Norwegian and the English article on semi-metro are newer than the Ruter report. They only took three images from WP.
• Original Research has two definitions: one inside and one outside of Wikipedia. Within WP, OR is research done by our own volunteers.
• In this comparison "light metro" is not mentioned a single time. And even if it did, there's no Wikipedia policy that requires sources to be only local.
• Fors sure the Link light rail-article can link to the light metro article, but then readers will find out themselves that Link isn't one of them, as it simply lacks an end-to-end independent alignement. Let's fix that by looking and the context, as we are here to improve Wikipedia.

KatVanHuis (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I have yet to see evidence that "semi-metro" is a widely used term in the U.S. transit industry (as required in WP:ENGVAR), whereas "light metro" at least appears in non-industry publications from time to time to describe Link and similar systems. And again, one of the core policies of the English Wikipedia is our adherence to reliable secondary sources; it is not our place, as editors, to force our own definitions or be pedantic to the point of hurting the project (as is happening now). The linked Times article explicitly mentions light metro in the chart, and is not the only use of the term by the Times. A fair compromise would be removing these secondary indicators entirely and just go with the simple, all-encompassing "light rail" and leave it at that. SounderBruce 00:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again SounderBruce, I will address each of your points:

• The advice from WP:ENGVAR is: Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. One example: semi-metro is preferred to the national varieties tram subway (British English) and subway-surface line (American English).
• Perhaps "light metro" occasionally appears in non-industry publications, but these lack the expertise to assess that a "light metro" has a completely independent alignement; opposed to "light rail" that is defined to also have an exclusive alignement or sometimes even running in mixed traffic. Light metro is a concept originally coined in the late 20th century by the World Bank to refer to new rapid transit projects in Asia. So far the only proper light metro system in the USA is the Skyline (Honolulu).
• How can it be my own definition while it was mentioned as early as 1966 (before I even was born) in the U.S. transit industry? It was included in the "Transportation Research Board Special Report 179, Glossary of Urban Public Transportation Terms" in 1978 and again and afterwards in newer editions. The 1989 edition states: semi-metro–a light rail transit system that uses exclusive right-of-way for much of its length, usually at surface grade but occasionally in tunnels or on aerial structures.
• These secondary indicators serve an encyclopedia well, as its sole purpose is to inform readers. Light rail is a too wide of a concept in this case.

KatVanHuis (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The term "semi-metro" is not used by modern U.S. transit publications, nor is it used by the public at large. It should not appear in this article, which is meant for the general public, not industry specialists, primarily for a U.S. audience. There is no reason to keep pushing this niche term onto the light rail articles on Wikipedia when it flies in the face of NPOV and SYNTH. SounderBruce 16:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Jumping in as a third opinion here… the term "semi-metro" is not used to describe U.S. transit, the term "light metro" is, and does accurately describe the rather unique operation of this line. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

From my understanding, "light metro" describes systems that would otherwise be considered a metro but are smaller in size, like the Docklands Light Railway in London. Medium-capacity rail system, which "light metro" redirects to, has a more thorough breakdown and a list of examples in the US and abroad. The main point is that the term refers to a smaller metro/metro that is light instead of light rail that is like a metro, which is what Link is. In the intro to that article, it says "In contrast with light rail systems, an MCS runs on a fully grade separated exclusive right-of-way." Link has 49 at-grade crossings on the 1 and 2 Lines, and 47 on the T line (per Sound Transit), and as such is nowhere close to fully grade separated. I don't have any opinions on the term "semi-metro", but definitely am opposed to the use of "light metro" in this case. Sbb618 (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said light rail rapid transit (which is what the lede says). Link is unique in that it only has the one primary at-grade section (I think in retrospect, largely considered to be a mistake)… but what makes that section unique is that it has near-total signal preemption, so it’s rare for a train to stop anywhere other than a station. That is quite unique amongst US light rail systems, which often have median running sections that operate more like a streetcar. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello RickyCourtney, light rail expert Vuchic has defined "light rail rapid transit" as rail transit that runs on a grade-separated exclusive right-of-way, end to end. And so the term "light rail rapid transit" fails to describe the operation of any Link line. KatVanHuis (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I like the first sentence as it now stands:

Link light rail is a light rail system with several rapid transit characteristics that serves the Seattle metropolitan area in the U.S. state of Washington.

I think that accurately describes its unique operation. However, I still don't like the second sentence:

With light rail and rapid transit sections combined, it could be classified as a semi-metro system.

I agree with Bruce here, the term "semi-metro" is not used by modern reliable U.S. transit publications, nor is it used by the public at large. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello RickyCourtney, I'm afraid this reaction is less helpful: see WP:JDL KatVanHuis (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@KatVanHuis are you also aware of Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass or Wikipedia:Let it go? RickyCourtney (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello SounderBruce, I will address each of your points:

• I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that our project is about popularity contests; neither which article is created for which specific regional audience.
• WP:NPOV states: The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. This why I formulated the article like this: "it could be classified as a semi-metro system." instead of "it is classified as a semi-metro system."
• WP:SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Yet, here both sources duplicate one single element stated somewhere in the line of: "Link is a type of semi-metro LRT."

KatVanHuis (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The policy in question is MOS:NEO; it is about what is used in normal contexts by reliable public sources, not terms that are only specific to those within the industry. We are not in the business of speculation (hence why "could be classified" is problematic) and must reflect the sources available and are generally up-to-date. Once again, I don't think we should be using sources from almost 20 years ago to describe a system that has several current and upcoming sections that were not even in planning at that time. The use of these terms should be discussed at a larger venue, such as WT:TRAINS, rather than in individual articles due to the nature of these changes. SounderBruce 21:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Map dispute

I've made a map of Seattle transit and added it to this page, but I received what I feel is unsourced criticism and unjustified deletions. SounderBruce, whose contributions ae definitely quite valuable, has sought to delete my map twice. First time, it was based on the belief that it doesn't focus on Link, which is a valid concern I'm working to address, and second time that it is not a 'good-quality' map and that it has 'layout errors' and 'width issues'. I feel my map accurately captures the sprawling transit system and, albeit it sacrifices accurate scale for readability, it does a good enough job at providing information to the reader. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is up to one user - no matter how well-knowledgeable and experienced - to decide that no map is better than an imperfect map. Therefore, I call on SounderBruce to allow me to add my map back and provide constructive criticism that is in line with the good-spirit ideas behind Wikipedia.

MapperGuy87 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The article already has two geographic maps (one interactive, one static) and a BSicon diagram. That is sufficient to illustrate the scale of the system and its stations to a reader.

This new map is not clear at thumbnail size and includes too many other non-Link services. Not to mention, the map has several mistakes, namely the order of the Redmond stations, odd curves that don't conform to the actual layout of the system, and non-accurate color choices. If we do need to have another simplified map, it should be something slim enough to fit in the infobox. SounderBruce 22:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The well-established standard for American transit articles is three maps - one interactive one overlaid on OpenStreetMap, one static one as an .svg and one schematic one with BSIcons. This standard is held up well with Los Angeles's, San Diego's, San Francisco's, Philadelphia's, Salt Lake's City's, Sacramento's, Cleveland's... systems, which all feature at least three articles. If you feel you disagree, I invite you to participate in a public discussion which would seek to back your idea of *not* adding an extra map, albeit I strongly doubt the benefits of such a decision. Right now, it is my opinion against yours, and two people disagreeing hardly makes up a consensus. In the meantime, I will correct the order of the stations, re-color the map to make Link services more visible and look at those 'curves' you pointed out. Also, I would kindly ask you not to delete my map the next time I add it without a prior discussion.

MapperGuy87 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

It's important that a map is made accurate before it is added. A more simplified map without unnecessary snaking turns would be welcome. SounderBruce 04:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

So, I have considered your remarks - especially given there *is* a consensus now, thanks to Reywas92, and I feel this map could be a compromise. It is much simpler and focuses on the link system without the snaking turns, except for parts where they are strictly necessary - for example, at the northern end of Line 2. It's still a work in progress, surely, but I feel that it fits your requirements better than the previous one.

MapperGuy87 (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The 2 Line will not serve Stadium station and will continue all the way up to Lynnwood. I don't see the point in having that final curve into Lynnwood City Center, as it is not more dramatic than the actual turns on the line further south. I would also caution that consensus requires more than just three users, but this map is a much better start. SounderBruce 19:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! How does it look now? Upload-worthy yet or not? I've fixed the Line 2, streamlined the top part in general, added some connections and worked out the legend and the T section.

MapperGuy87 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks better, but there's still some text clipping issues (International District/Chinatown, the labels for the 2 Line between Bellevue and Overlake), some of the station names have errors (Belred should be BelRed, etc.), the icons don't have centered numerals and don't use the right colors (especially for Sounder), and there's no room to add Pinehurst station (which opens next year). SounderBruce 21:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I am certain we will figure it out :3

MapperGuy87 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

A diagram map is vital to the article. Since the official map is likely copyrighted, a map like MapperGuy87's is a great addition here. I think SounderBruce's comments are fair and the map should be updated before it's readded and perhaps made accessible to be changed easily by others, but File:Link light rail geographic map.svg is hard to read without zooming in a lot, the OpenStreetMap isn't also desirable, and the icon diagram in the infobox lacks shape and scale entirely. Having multiple styles of map is standard and important to have. Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Station art photo w/ GAN

I have some photos I've taken of various Link station art. Would it be appropriate for me to add one before the GA review starts, or no? Don't want to overstep in between the nomination and review. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 05:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sarsenet: Given that sculptures and other artwork is now presumed to be copyrighted, I don't think we should have those images. See this Commons guide for some more information. I do plan on creating a list of Sound Transit artwork at some point, but finding third-party sources is rather difficult. SounderBruce 05:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce I've read through the guide, but am unsure of how this situation differs from other public art or Link station art like Hot Rat Summer or Jet Kiss. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 21:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Basically, per rules on artwork and sculptures, we really shouldn't have pictures of these works because they were created after 1978. Commons is very picky about copyright; for Jet Kiss, Sound Transit released these specific photos under a compatible license, but it's still in a gray area. SounderBruce 21:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Link light rail/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 05:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zzz plant (talk · contribs) 22:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi SounderBruce, thank you for your work on this article. I’ll be taking it up for review and will post some preliminary comments within the next day. A quick note: I usually make a couple of passes through an article during GAR, focusing on one major criterion at a time, with prose/style generally coming last. So there’s no pressure to respond each time I update the page. Zzz plant (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Zzz plant: Thank you for the thorough review. I am planning to take this article to FAC in the future, so this level of review is very much appreciated. I have made almost every prose change that was suggested and trimmed away some of the sections. SounderBruce 02:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You’re very welcome! This was an enjoyable read, and great to learn more about transit in WA. Since all of my comments have been addressed, I’ll be promoting momentarily. Best of luck at FAC! Zzz plant (talk)

Prose

• Generally, the prose is very good! It's readable and engaging. I will offer some minor c/e suggestions below (and will add new subsection titles as I go through the prose).

Lede

• "Tacoma Link began construction first in 2000 and opened on August 22, 2003, becoming the first modern light rail system in the state." suggest removing "first", seems a bit redundant
  • Done.
• "The trains initially ran from Downtown Seattle to Tukwila International Boulevard station before being extended south to Seattle–Tacoma International Airport in December 2009." suggest adding "the" before Tukwila International Boulevard station
  • The article is not needed, as typically train stations are treated the same as general placenames; e.g. "the Seattle" on its own wouldn't work.
• "The Sound Transit 3 (ST3) ballot measure was approved in 2016 and funds plans to expand network to 116 miles (187 km) and 83 stations by 2044." suggest adding an article of some kind before "network", maybe "the" or "its"
  • Done, that was a typo.

Predecessors and earlier proposals

• I go more into this in scope, but as a whole I think this could stand to be trimmed down - this background section represents almost 700 words before the reader even gets to the article topic
• "The first form of scheduled public transportation in the Puget Sound region were various steamboat ferries that later evolved into the "mosquito fleet" in the 1880s as the area's population grew." suggest replacing "were" with "was" for subject-verb agreement, as it refers to "the first form"
  • Fixed.
• "Electric streetcars and cable cars debuted in 1889 under other companies and continued to grow outward into new developments called streetcar suburbs." suggest clarifying new housing developments (or new residential neighborhoods?); I initially thought it referred to new developments in transit infrastructure
  • Added "residential".
• "The Seattle Transit System, which operated buses within the city, launched one of the nation's first express bus systems in 1970 and drew new suburban riders but continued to face financial issues." I would recommend splitting out the last clause into a new sentence, like "The Seattle Transit System, which operated buses within the city, launched one of the nation's first express bus systems in 1970. This drew new suburban riders but the system continued to face financial issues."
  • Split.

Rail plans and Tacoma launch

• overall, the detail about the long-term studies seems a bit granular. I think you could condense this into a shorter first paragraph without losing the valuable overall background.
  • I'm afraid that trimming away any more from the first paragraph would lead to gaps in coverage; all four steps in the planning process are crucial to the development of the rail system.
• I'm a bit confused about "It would be constructed by 2020 if approved by voters..." - the jump forward into contemporary era doesn't feel fully contextualized to me. It sort of leaves me confused about what is going on- a study's recommendations from 1983 are still being actively considered for enactment?
  • The plan predicted that, if immediately approved, the rail system would be finished by 2020. Reworded to be a bit clearer.

Central Link planning and construction

• "An audit of Sound Transit’s finances from the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation was ordered by Congress before further grants would be approved." suggest rephrase to "Congress ordered an audit of Sound Transit’s finances by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation before further grant approval."
  • Done.
• "A private audit commissioned by Sound Transit determined that the agency's financial estimates had been "overly optimistic", lacked adequate contingencies, and were drawn from insufficient data." I would just say "that their financial estimates..." if you're talking about Sound Transit itself
  • Fixed.

Expansion packages and openings

• "The Great Recession was anticipated to decrease tax revenue needed to fund ST2, particularly from southern King County; in response, Sound Transit scaled back its extensions to Federal Way and Redmond, removing the construction budget for their final sections, and deferred several other projects." - I think these sentences (joined by semi-colon) would benefit from being split. I would suggest adding something like "in response to projected loss in funding" to make the transition a little clearer
  • Done.

Lines

• "The use of other color names was avoided because they carry various associations, would require more complex names, or would be confused with the Swift Bus Rapid Transit system in Snohomish County; the use of letters was found to conflict with King County Metro‘s RapidRide system, which already used them, and was retained solely for Sounder." recommend splitting the sentences at the semi-colon, also can remove "which already used them" by just saying "the use of letters was found to conflict with King County Metro‘s established RapidRide system."
  • Done.

1 Line (Lynnwood–Angle Lake)

• "The northernmost four stations, in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, were shared with buses until they were moved to surface streets in 2019." - I assume the buses were moved as that makes more sense, but I feel like this could potentially be clarified as right now "they" could be interpreted ambiguously
  • Fixed.

2 Line (South Bellevue–Redmond)

• no comments, looks good

T Line (Tacoma Dome–St. Joseph)

• "Fares were not collected until the 2023 opening of the Hilltop Extension; the T Line was the first Link line to use a flat fare rather than a distance-based fare." recommend splitting to two sentences a the semi-colon
  • Done.

Stations

• "Link, like many other light rail systems in the United States, also uses proof-of-payment for fare validation with marked paid fare zones instead of turnstiles." I would remove "also" since it's already implied with the "like many other..." clause.
  • Done.
• "Stations on the 1 Line and 2 Line are also identified by three-digit station code that was implemented with the opening of the Lynnwood extension in August 2024." three-digit station code either needs an article ("a") or recommend changing to plural ("codes")
  • Fixed.
• "The system has two-digit numbers that increase from south to north for individual stations, with the central point of Westlake station designated as "50"." - I find this a bit confusing. Maybe replace "system" with "stations"?
  • Replaced with "codes".

Public art

• I think it's worth mentioning the name of the public art program, which appears to be STart
  • Added.
• "...and newer pieces that are designed to be integrated within the architecture of stations." - I think this phrasing could be simplified somewhat, maybe like "...and newer pieces designed to be integrated with station architecture."
  • Fixed.
• is there a reason "Sound of Light" is in quotes and the other art pieces aren't?
  • Fixed.

Transit-oriented development

• "Sound Transit and local governments have encouraged the use of transit-oriented development (TOD) and smart growth to add housing and job density around existing and future Link stations." - I think this section could benefit from a stronger lead sentence. suggest something like "Sound Transit and local governments promote transit-oriented development (TOD) around Link stations to increase housing and employment opportunities."
  • Fixed.
• "Approximately 10,000 housing units are planned to be constructed at four stations on the Lynnwood Link Extension, which opened in 2024 in the northern suburbs of Seattle." - I would maybe say "around" or "near" rather than "at", since the construction is planned in proximity not necessarily at the actual stations
  • Fixed.
• "It requires that reserve and surplus land surrounding light rail stations be used for affordable housing development where possible. The "80–80–80 rule" applies to 80 percent of surplus land around transit projects and mandates that it be offered to developers who designate 80 percent of residential units to residents who make 80 percent or less of the area median income." the transition between the general program and the specific 80^3 rule could be improved, maybe to make it clear that this rule is part of this program or a way it's being implemented
  • Merged the two sentences, as they were a bit redundant.

Service

• "The T Line has trains every 12 minutes on from Monday to Saturday..." recommend removing "on"
  • Fixed, that was a typo.
• "Service on the 2 Line and T Line is extended on evenings with events at Marymoor Park and the Tacoma Dome, respectively; additional trains are also deployed on the 1 Line after major events to increase capacity and reduce crowding." recommend splitting into separate sentences at the semicolon
  • Split.
• I would make it consistent if you're including ":00" in even times or not- you have both, for instance 1:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. either is fine with me. I noticed it first in this section but there may be another instance or two in the document worth checking too.
  • Fixed.

Ridership

• no comments, looks good

Fares

• "The original enforcement system for non-paying riders were suspended in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the racial disparities in received citations..." suggest "was" suspended for subject-verb agreement (as subject is singular - "original enforcement system")
  • Fixed.
• "The distance-based fare for the 1 Line and 2 Line were eliminated on August 30, 2024..." - same for this, suggest "was" since subject is singular
  • Fixed, these were both leftover from an earlier version.

Infrastructure

• "They are sometimes described as light metro lines due to their extensive use of grade separation and longer trainsets that are more similar to rapid transit systems rather than North American light rail." - this sentence is a bit complex, suggest separating out latter clause with a comma like this ...longer trainsets, which are more similar to rapid transit systems rather than North American light rail."
  • Done.

Rolling stock

• "Digital signage with maps were added to trains beginning with the rollout..." suggest replacing "were" with "was" for subject-verb agreement
  • Changed to "digital signs", which is plural.
• "Each Series 1 car has 74 seats arranged primarily in a transverse pairs..." recommend removing the "a" before transverse pairs
  • Fixed.
• "The articulated section has fourteen seats..." I would write 14 numerically rather than spell it out to be consistent with the rest of the article
  • Fixed.
• "By the end of the Sound Transit 3 expansion program in 2048, the Link system is planned to have 460 total light rail vehicles maintained at four total operations and maintenance facilities." two "total"s in close proximity, I would eliminate the first one
  • Removed the second, as it is less necessary.
• "Each Škoda car has 30 seats and can carry an additional 85 standing passengers at crush loads." - I would say something like "...and can accommodate 85 standing passengers at crush load capacity." - although crush load is defined earlier in text, it's used in a slightly different way here that may not be as intuitive
  • Done.

Electricity and signaling

• "Trains are supplied electricity..." suggest adding "with" after supplied
  • Done.
• "Electricity is supplied to substations and converted into the appropriate for use by Link..." - I'm a bit confused by this phrasing- maybe "converted into the appropriate form for use by Link"? I would also separate the following sentence out into a separate sentence (that's joined by semi-colon)
  • Added missing words and split.
• "Link also has transit signal priority on some at-grade sections that overrides turn signals..." - a non-expert reading this may think "turn signal" refers to cars' indicator lights. I would say "traffic signals"
  • Done.

Maintenance facilities

• the second para has two "as well as"-es in relatively close proximity, I would trim one of them for conciseness
  • Removed the second.
• "The East OMF faces a section of the Eastrail bicycle and pedestrian trail and includes a "Nails", an art installation..." I would remove "a" before "Nails" - also just noting this is one of art piece titles that's in quotes while others aren't (in public art section)
  • Fixed.

Future expansion

(including all the smaller subsections under one header)

• for the 4 Line (South Kirkland–Issaquah), I would simplify "depending on funding availability" to "depending on funding"
  • Done.

Safety and security

• "Sound Transit contracts with local law enforcement agencies to provide policing services, which includes patrolling..." - plural subject (policing services), so I would change to "which include"
  • Fixed.
• "These include a dedicated unit of the King County Sheriff's Office and members of the Lynnwood Police Department, who both are contracted..." - "who both are" sounds a bit awkward to me, I would suggest "...both of whom are contracted..."
  • Fixed in a different manner to preserve the adverb.
• "Sound Transit also contracts with four private security firms with 550 uniformed security officers who patrol stations and trains and respond to incidents." - repeats both "security" and "officers", suggest "Sound Transit also contracts with four private security firms, employing 550 uniformed officers who patrol stations and trains and respond to incidents."
  • Fixed.
• "By 2021, 8 people had been killed and 54 injured in train-related incidents on the Rainier Valley section; a Sound Transit study endorsed the use of new pilot projects, such as handheld swing gates for pedestrians and new barriers for vehicles, to reduce the number of collisions." - I would separate the sentences joined by semicolon, and I think you can remove the first instance of "new" since newness is implied by pilot program
  • Fixed.

Sourcing

• EW 20.6%, mostly because of proper nouns. All the small fragments of overlap look acceptable. No copyvio concerns.
• Sources look reliable- books come from reputable publishers, articles from established newspapers with editorial oversight, and use of primary sources for noncontroversial claims seems appropriate.
• Reference formatting is generally good. Only thing I would suggest is linking to publication names in references (i.e. The Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer). You can also link to Newspapers.com. Since each citation stands alone, this is permitted under MOS:DUPLINK. I think it’s helpful to the reader, as they can quickly evaluate an in-line citation by hovering over the #, and click to view the publication info if they want to learn more.
  • Generally, I tend to avoid creating a "sea of blue" situation in reference sections that would otherwise hide the most useful and necessary part of the individual citation (normally the external link).
    • Understandable to try to avoid a "sea of blue." I personally feel that linking the publication names in the references helps readers quickly verify the sources behind the citations, which I think is more important than style/visuals. That said, I think this could be a matter of personal taste, and I’m happy to defer to your preference on this.
• There are also a handful of missing archive links, could queue up an IAbot run or I think many of these are already backed up in archive.today (that's how I accessed many of the sources for spot checks).
  • Will do so once the review is finished and fewer changes to sourcing are made. SounderBruce 10:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    • sounds good!
• no indication of original research; text summarizes the sources and does not come to its own conclusions

Spot checks

ref numbers as of this revision

• [16]: article "The federal funding that was earmarked for the Seattle project was instead reallocated to the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority in Atlanta, Georgia." vs. source "The federal money earmarked for Seattle went to Atlanta’s MARTA rapid transit system." Y
• [47]: article "It had no fares and exceeded its 2010 ridership projections by early 2003, carrying its 500,000th passenger in April of the year." vs. source "Tacoma link...carried its 500,000th passenger last Saturday, according to Sound Transit... + "Weekday boardings are averaging an estimated 2,320, exceeding consultants' projections that it would take until 2010 to exceed 2,000 weekday boardings." + "Actual ridership is part head count and part guesswork because the streetcar is free. Y
• [56]: article "The inspector general's interim report criticized the FTA and Sound Transit for advancing in the grant review process without having a firm cost estimate, which had changed several times due to modifications to the preferred project." vs. source "The report criticized Sound Transit and the FTA for pushing for a $500 million grant agreement last year "despite information that the project's cost and schedule were changing significantly."" Y
• [62]: article "The inspector general's second investigation of Sound Transit took ten months and was completed in July 2003;" vs. source "Last spring, three Inspector General auditors...spent the next 10 months poring over financial procedures and interviewing staff to determine their competency to build the largest public-works project in state history. Y/N mostly verified, but not seeing the "completed in July 2003" bit - and the source is from June
  • Moved up the next source to cover this one.
    • looks good nowY
• [85]: article "Daily ridership on Central Link increased from 39,000 passengers prior to the extension's opening to 65,000 by February 2017." vs. source "In the year before their opening, about 39,000 people each weekday on average used light rail. Now, about 65,000 people do." Y
• [102]: article "Construction of the next Link extension funded by ST2, traveling north by 4.3 miles (6.9 km) from the University of Washington campus to Northgate station with two intermediate underground stations, began in August 2012." vs. source "Sound Transit's Northgate Link 6.9km light rail extension" + "from just north of Roosevelt station to University of Washington station." Y/N the gist is there, just not seeing a mention of ST2 funding or specification of how many underground stations would be built
  • Replaced with press release and supplemented to cover more of this content.
• [107]: article "[The Northgate extension] was the first Sound Transit project to be completed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused ridership to decline to 22,000 daily passengers by May 2021; frequency on Central Link (soon to become the 1 Line) was cut to 12 minutes due to a lack of available train operators." vs. source "Ridership remains low at just 22,000 daily passengers as of mid-May" + "A shortage of train operators, caused by COVID-19 illnesses and quarantines, was the main reason for curtailing service...waiting for Sound Transit trains 12 minutes apart at peak" Y/N mostly verified, just not seeing Northgate confirmed as first project completed during COVID-19 pandemic or its later title of 1 Line
  • Dropped the first, but do not think we need a WP:SKYISBLUE citation for the pandemic's place in the timeline or the eventual 1 Line switch.
    • okay fair enough on the 1 Line switch point, and the sentence about first COVID construction project has been dropped so this is resolved Y
• [117]: article "The Seattle–Mercer Island express lanes were closed to traffic in June 2017 and replaced by a set of high-occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV lanes) on the outer lanes of Interstate 90." vs. source "This weekend the express lanes will permanently close...before Sound Transit contractors take over this month. + "One new high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane is being squeezed into each direction of the freeway mainline." ? seems like this article was written before permanent closure
  • It is not uncommon to use citations that announce expected and scheduled near-term events in this manner. There is rarely follow-up coverage of such changes.
    • seems reasonable, resolvedY
• [127]: article "Service between Seattle and Bellevue is scheduled to begin in early 2026, pending further tests on the section." vs. source "Transit will accelerate the start of Federal Way light rail service to this fall, pushing it ahead of the Seattle-Bellevue crossing over Lake Washington expected in early 2026." Y
• [185]: article "Link stations and facilities are furnished with pieces of public artwork as part of a Sound Transit program that allocates one percent of the capital budget for art." vs. source "One percent of the non-tunneling construction cost of Sound Transit projects goes to the art program." Y
• [202]: article "Sound Transit also contracts with four private security firms with 550 uniformed security officers who patrol stations and trains and respond to incidents." vs. source " Sound Transit has increased its unarmed security to 550 employees, providing near-constant presence in stations." Y/N verifies 550 unarmed guards, but doesn't seem to specify contracts with four security firms
  • Added source for the four firms claim.
    • Y looks good now, text fully verified
• [311]: article "All trains and stations have emergency intercom systems and Sound Transit also allows passengers to use text messages to contact security officers." vs. source "Emergency intercom buttons are also on every train and at the Link platforms." + "Did you know you can text the Sound Transit Security Desk to report anything amiss on board your train or at your station?" Y
• [232]: article "A full rebuild of the section to add grade separation is estimated to cost $1.1 billion to $1.7 billion. vs. source "How much money and hassle would it take to fix Seattle’s most hazardous stretch of light rail, by getting trains off the road surface in Rainier Valley? The answer was at least $1.7 billion to move the tracks 30 feet overhead like a monorail, or $1.1 billion to sink them in a trench..." Y
• [317]: article "Sound Transit began to block seating areas near operator cabs in 2022 to prevent fumes and smoke from affecting employees." vs. source "Sound Transit has strung yellow plastic chains to block the seats near control cabs of its light-rail trains, following incidents of operators being overcome by toxic smoke" doesn't explicitly state year, but it's from 2022, I'm good with that Y

Scope

• Covers everything I can conceivably think one would want to know about this rail system- background, history, operations, safety, and future plans.
• it is on the longer end of article guidelines, at nearly 10k words per WP:SIZERULE it may benefit from some trimming. that being said, there's nothing overtly out of place or any conspicuous detours; all the information is relevant and logically organized. the three areas I would suggest could most benefit from a bit of pruning are:

1. History#Predecessors and earlier proposals - while this is fascinating transit history, I don't think all of this is critical to understanding the modern link light rail as it stands today.
2. Infrastructure#rolling stock - this is a bit granular in my opinion. some of the stats could probably be condensed.
3. Safety and security - can perhaps be trimmed slightly to focus on the most pivotal incidents that had policy or longer-term implications. as is, it reads a bit like an incident log.

Consolidated a good portion of the predecessors section and trimmed away parts of the other two sections. As this is a system article that tries to juggle two incompatible areas, the length of the rolling stock section is going to be rather difficult to pare down. I do have plans to write a separate article for the rolling stock (along with Sound Transit's other rail and bus equipment), which should allow me to make further cuts in the future. SounderBruce 02:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality

• Neutral language throughout, everything appears fairly weighted

Stability

• Constructive edit history. No indication of edit warring, only one difference of opinion on # images but only one revert and no follow-up issues.

Illustration

• Really well done- not just photographs but the maps too! All relevant and suitably licensed. I particularly like the "Series 2 light rail vehicle" panel showing three different views.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Darth Stabro (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Link light rail system in Seattle will include the first railway on a floating bridge? Source: The Seattle Times, Bloomberg/CityLab
  • ALT1: ... that the use of new colors to label Link light rail lines was withdrawn two months after their introduction? Source: The Seattle Times
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Haru Urara (Umamusume), Template:Did you know nominations/Super Robin Hood
  • Comment: More hooks forthcoming if needed.

Improved to Good Article status by SounderBruce (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 260 past nominations.

SounderBruce 05:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC).

@SounderBruce: The article satisfies the newness and length criteria; It is very well-sourced, neutral, and I have not detected any plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Both QPQs have been provided. Regarding the hooks:

For the first hook, perhaps you could provide a second source, since it is a superlative hook per WP:DYKHOOKCITE

As for the second hook, it seems to me that red was the only color abandoned after two months. Furthermore, I cannot access the source for the second hook, so I request you to provide a quote. Very interesting read :) -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@AmateurHi$torian: Added a second source above. For the second hook, all of the lines were affected (see here), but only the Red Line/now 1 Line had undergone rebranding. A relevant quote: "Colors aren’t needed until 2023, when the second line, to be called the Blue Line, opens from International District/Chinatown Station to the Eastside, reaching Bellevue and Overlake. At that point, two lines will overlap from International District/Chinatown Station to Northgate Station." SounderBruce 07:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Both sources for the first hook check out. The second source you provided for ALT2 does say that both red and yellow lines were affected and they are going to be referred to as "Link" and "Tacoma link" now. So, ALT1 checks out too. Good to go AmateurHi$torian (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Downtown East Link opening date

In Sound Transit's monthly status report it was mentioned that the expected opening date would be May 31st, 2026, so the change was made with Special:Diff/1326164401

This was also confirmed by Sound Transit's CEO on king5 https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/bellevue/bellevue-light-rail-extension-opening-may-31-or-sooner/281-da6ae8bb-1aa5-4894-9769-feb9ec888852

Was the reason for the revert because I refined the West Seattle and Ballard extensions based on the same report (which were not confirmed) @SounderBruce? YeSpud (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Until there is a confirmed, set date (as announced as a press conference), we should not be putting anything more detailed than the year. The report and Constantine's interview all have a "by May 31" date that is not exact. This has been standard practice for transit articles due to how often the dates shift during these progress reports (and indeed, the date listed has moved around a lot for the 2 Line). SounderBruce 23:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Infobox system map offset

Hi,

In both the collapsed and expanded system maps in the Infobox, the 1 line is not quite offset right, so that it looks like the 1 line continues onto Bellevue South after the CID while the 2 line is orphaned. Can the offset be fixed so the 1 line in both states is continuous? Easwarno1 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

PS: I'm not super well versed with Inkscape but I could give ita whack if I could find the source file. Unfortunately, I'm failing at Wiki search for the moment to find Seattle-transit-2.svg

@Easwarno1: I'm not seeing what you refer to, in the infobox the labels are properly aligned and the 1 and 2 lines are separated beyond the wye at International District/Chinatown whether the 2026 note is collapsed or uncollapsed. The static map is on Wikimedia Commons at commons:File:Seattle-transit-2.svg. SounderBruce 21:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce See screenshots from my phone:

Collapsed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Screenshot_20251207-205615_Firefox.jpg&oldid=1326858667,

Expanded: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Screenshot_20251207-205628_Firefox.jpg&oldid=1326858914

Hth. Easwarno1 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Dead system length source

The reference given for the total system length [4] is a dead URL to a now inaccessible internal Sound Transit document. It appears the total length is being calculated by adding all the previous extensions up in a big running list.

Is the big summation list mission critical or can it be replaced by some more unifying source (such as https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2025-Transit-Development-Plan.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com). I assume at the very least the dead reference currently attached needs to be changed? I made some changes earlier after FWLE opened but am new to Wikipedia and don't want to come in wrecking anything. Rocketmannnn (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The URL was merely moved to this part of the website. I would caution against using ChatGPT to conduct any kind of research that gets put into Wikipedia due to the high risk of circular sourcing and hallucinated sources. SounderBruce 21:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Map of Line 3 routes on the main article?

Hi,

I’m currently learning about the future expansion plans of the Link light rail. However, there is no map (diagram or OSM base) for the Line 3 expansion, only a route map in the infobox of Line 3’s page.

May I suggest that the said route map (made with the template) be added to the corresponding section of this article for now, while an interactive map (OSM base) be added that geographically draws out Line 3’s route (and if possible, the locations of Line 4’s terminus)?

Thanks. Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 03:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-SIN: The full routing of the West Seattle Link Extension (along with other portions of the 3 Line and 4 Line) has not been confirmed, so any map produced now would quickly become outdated. SounderBruce 05:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, got it Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 10:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)