From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pacific Surfliner is second, not third, busiest route

Corrected lead paragraph to show Pacific Surfliner as the second busiest Amtrak route, behind the Northeast Corridor, at least for the month of January 2006. [1] Previously, both the Capitol Corridor and the Pacific Surfliner page claimed that each route was the third busiest (see further discussion at Talk:Capitol Corridor). Also, in the same sentence, changed the NEC reference from Acela (which is an article about just the Acela brand name) to Northeast Corridor, since technically both the Acela/Metroliner service and the Regional service surpass the California routes. - Comodude 03:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Station Articles

Could someone help out with the station articles that have yet to be made. I'm not from California, so I don't know about the stations, so if anyone is familiar with them, please create good articles. I can always help improve them. Geoking66 04:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not from California either, and I noticed that the infobox for Northridge (Metrolink station) was given a color bar for this line, even though all evidence indicates that Amtrak doesn't stop there. And I was getting ready to add an Amtrak routebox to the Metrolink one until I found this out. ---- DanTD 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Your right the PS doens't stop at Northridge. I'm from Southern CA and I would be willing to help answer any questions and help improve the pages. RickyCourtney 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Route template

The reason why the route map is displayed outsidethe infobox is that it doesn't display correctly when inside it. It ends up with gaps between each line segment. Tompw ( talk) ( review) 16:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Not for me it doesn't, whereas I'm getting a few gaps outside the infobox. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, I think it's an IE-specific issue, because Firefox and Opera don't have this problem. Using IE 6, I found zooming out one level eliminated the issue altogether. Making the text smaller might fix the problem too, but I'm not sure how to "fix" it for just one browser. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Laguna Niguel / Mission Viejo

The Pacific Surfliner now serves Metrolink's station at Laguna Niguel / Mission Viejo, right? I think this should be added. The Interloafer ( talk) 15:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply

2009 Ridership

The 3.09 million figure is unsubstantiated in either of the references. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FY2009 has not ended just yet. In the meantime, I will post up the 2.89 million figure for FY2008. Facial ( talk) 23:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I stand corrected. The FY2009 period ended Sept. 30th, and new figures are up. Facial ( talk) 02:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Accidents Section

This is akin to a trivia section, or listing accidents on the 405 freeway. A quick look at the San Joaquins and Capitol Corridor routes gives some perspective on the proper layout of an article.

An encyclopedia should be a summary of information about a subject, and thus, listing accidents should not be included. Facial ( talk) 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply

History/ Proposed Expansions Section

This article could benefit greatly from the addition and expansion of a dedicated "History" (as seen in the California Zephyr article though its a bit unorganized there]] and "Proposed Expansions" section (as seen in the Capitol Corridor article). Socalres ( talk) 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC) reply

  • i.e. Proposed University City tunnel, doubling tracking efforts, electrification proposals, etc. Socalres ( talk) 02:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC) reply

File:San Diego train station.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:San Diego train station.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Unavailable Link

The link to Amtrak's January 2006 Monthly Performance Report is unavailable. Please fix the link or delete it. Thank you! Max Buskirk ( talk) 02:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Surf, not Surt

Interactive map contains the misspelling "Surt" for the coastal location Surf. 99.103.247.221 ( talk) 15:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Fixed.-- RickyCourtney ( talk) 04:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pacific Surfliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

New stations table

@ Mjdestroyerofworlds: Just noting that the stations table you added in late December, 2019 is pretty awful in MOS:ACCESS terms, in its uses of 'rowspan'.

I don't intend to do anything about this imminently, and I'll likely think about it some more, but it strikes me that the most obvious "fixes" are to eliminate the 'County' column, and probably move the "defunct" stations out of the table (into a separate list or table), and then move the 'Service began' column to the left-side of the table.

Consider this a heads up... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree that the table needs work. It flat-out has no need to be sortable. Station code does not belong in this sort of table, and county probably can be cut as well. Rail and Thruway Motorcoach connections should be consolidated into a single Notes column, which can also include closure date. I'm inclined to cut opening date entirely - it's better discussed in prose under a History heading. That's especially true because the column makes it appear as though many stations opened in 2000, when that was merely the date that the train's name was changed.
I would add a column for mileage - that's legitimately useful in a table. Keep the former stations, but reverse the color scheme: former stations have no coloring, but current stations have bgcolor=ffdfff. So that leaves us with | Station | Miles | County (maybe) | Notes and connections |, which is a much more useful and accessible table. See Fitchburg Line#Station listing for a similar example table. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Pi.1415926535: The Fitchburg table violates MOS:ACCESS with bad 'rowspan' use in both the 'Fare zone' and 'City' column, so that's not a great example either... In terms of the table for this article, I would definitely advise just eliminating the 'County' column, as it's either going to violate MOS:ACCESS with bad 'rowspan' use, or it's just going to look kind of dumb. Either counties should get left out, or we should convert this to a non-sortable table, and put the counties in the table as 'colspan'(ed) row "headers" within the table. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 00:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Eliminate former stations in table/infobox map

I propose that we eliminate the former stations (Anaheim, Orange, Laguna Niguel/​Mission Viejo, Carlsbad Village, Carlsbad Poinsettia, Encinitas, and Sorrento Valley) from the table and infobox map. We should continue to mention them in the prose of the page and on the individual station pages. Here's my reasoning: these stations were served for a brief period of time (4-6 years), they had very limited service (in most cases, they were only served by a few trains) and they were more of a trial addition for Rail2Rail passengers, meaning the station stop was more meant for Metrolink or Coaster pass holders, and weren't actively marketed to Amtrak customers. WP:INFOBOX states that infoboxes should, "...summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I think that same idea can be applied to station tables too, and I do not believe stations served for a brief time, by few trains as part of a trial program... does not meet that threshold of "key facts" that readers need to see at a glance. -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 17:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply

While short-lived, they were listed in Amtrak timetables as regular stops, and should be included. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply
They will still be included in appropriate places on the page. My point is, does the fact these stations were served for a brief time, by few trains as part of a trial program meet Wikipedia's threshold of being "key facts" that readers need to see at a glance? I don't think they do. -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 22:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply
A table is not an infobox; the reader expects it to be a complete listing of the information it claims to contain. It is misleading to have a table of stations and leave out several because of an arbitrary criteria. (How many daily trains would you require to put in the table? How many years?) Regardless of ridership or purpose, Amtrak treated these as regular stops rather than mere contracted stops. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply
If you're concerned about key facts, a much more pressing concern is the massive listing of every single local bus connection - a list that's never going to be reliably kept up to date with changes from over two dozen bus systems. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and that information should not be included. Leaving the muni operators in the list, but I would argue that those could come out too. Back to my earlier point... would you be open to removing the closed stations from the strip map in the infobox because they are not key facts? -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 02:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I still disagree with that removal. Every RDT that I can think of shows former stations; there needs to be a compelling reason to deviate from that standard, and I don't see that here. If there's really a reason to remove six lines from a default-collapsed RDT, I'd much rather see the details of Metro/San Diego Trolley tracks and the parking note removed. BTW, two notes about the stations table: location should be the leftmost column, as multi-row columns in the center of the table are an accessibility issue. The changes you made to LA Union Station look very nice. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 03:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Slimming down

@ RickyCourtney: I don't really agree with some of your recent edits, particularly this and this. The information about longer consists and former equipment is both cited and relevant, as is the mileage and municipality of stations. All of that is standard on comparable articles - why do you think it should be removed here? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Pi.1415926535: Fair enough point on the longer consists. However, the former equipment, if relevant belongs in the history section. Else, it turns into a long rambling discission about the way it was. As to the milage, none of the other Amtrak California pages have that info in their tables. It belongs in the route template and I've merged it there. -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 21:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If there are more than a couple sentences to be said about former equipment, I'm fine with that having its own level 3 heading under the equipment section. (Same for future equipment.) Empire Builder#Equipment is an existing albeit undercited example. I think it tends to be better there than under history, which tends to be complex enough just with service changes, except for perhaps particularly major events (such as the Keystone Service being cut back from Suburban Station due to equipment change).
I fully disagree about the mileage. That's basic information that belongs in the station table, not just hidden in the RDT - if anything, it's more relevant than connections. RDTs are also not accessible, while screen readers can handle tables. The municipalities aren't even in the RDT at all, and they're especially important for a route like this with multiple stations in the same cities. I would nominate Ethan Allen Express#Station stops as the standard format for Amtrak routes (with the state column removed for intrastate routes) - it's the right balance of important information an readability. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Equipment: I'm fine with your proposal of a L3 header for history and future. It's however been my experience that these get filled up with a lot of cruft about equipment that rarely ran (see Ocean View on this page). But knowing the caliber of your edits, I trust you to get it right.
Station tables: I'm all for a standardized format across all Amtrak routes and would be willing to help make that happen. However, I'm concerned about the width of these tables on mobile devices (where the majority of views happen). The information should be sorted by most important to least important, which in my opinion is: Station name, locality, milage, connections. Another option to make it better on mobile devices is a sticky header. I'd also like to propose we replace all the logos (which are just eye candy) with the type of service, which can help people understand the connections at a glance. Take a gander at how I'd do it, here.
-- RickyCourtney ( talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Another comment, the municipalities seem really redundant in nearly all cases. When they're not redundant, we can often explain with some sort of disambiguator, such as "San Diego–Old Town", "San Diego–Santa Fe Depot", or "San Clemente Pier." -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 22:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree about the cruft - it does take monitoring. I do think Ocean View is worth mentioning given that its presence on the Pacific Surfliner was advertised as an attraction.
Table:
  • I generally agree about the order of information. I could have sworn that there was an accessibility issue with taller column spans right of smaller spans (i.e, if the municipality column was right of the station column), but I can't find that in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial.
  • I love the sticky header, that looks great.
  • The municipality links are both information and navigation for the geography of the route. By my count, 15 Amtrak routes have multiple stations in the same municipality. The vast majority of commuter rail lines, which should generally follow this same format (save for adding fare zones) also have multiple stations in the same municipality.
  • I think it's worth having the separate column for the state. It's only a few characters of additional width, and eliminates a lot of visual clutter from the redundant state abbreviations.
Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think there's an accessibility issue as mush as a "correctness" or a "pedantic" issue with having taller column spans right of smaller spans.
  • I still stand by my reasoning that for most Amtrak routes, there's a natural disambiguator that alleviates the need for a municipality column. I agree that they're necessary for commuter rail lines.
  • A separate column for the state is fine.
  • Are you okay with replacing the service logos with an icon for the type of service?
RickyCourtney ( talk) 18:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
One other question... should these tables be sortable or static? If they're sortable, my understanding of the rules are that links should exist in every cell. RickyCourtney ( talk) 18:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I think it'd be worth having a wider discussion, probably on Talk:Amtrak, about details like municipalities and icons. (I like the icons for rail services, but I'm not as attached as I am to the municipalities.) A normal discussion is fine - no need to go through the effort of an RFC. In the meantime, could you re-add the municipalities here since that was the status quo.?
Definitely static tables - there's nothing that needs sorted, since the station order is what matters. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Pacific_Surfliner&oldid=1213892423"