Wikipedia

Talk:Bergen Light Rail

Latest comment: 1 year ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA Reassessment
Learn more about this page
Former good articleBergen Light Rail was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 2, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 12, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Station articles

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

With the last article in Lokaltrafikk I think there is enough information to start considering articles for the individual stations. There seem to be four ways of naming stations on Wikipedia, and two of them are used in the article. As far as I can see from the sources, the official Norwegian names are Foo holdeplass (except Byparken and Nesttun that are terminal). We could therefore use

  • Foo Station—grammatically correct, used for Norwegian mainline stations and some transit systems. "Station" could be replaced with "halt" or "stop".
  • Foo (station)—grammatically correct, but I would argue that "station" is still part of the official name. Used in Oslo, Trondheim and many other transits.
  • Foo (Bergen Light Rail station)—grammatically correct, but long and unnecessary. Used primarily for North American transits.
  • Foo light rail station—grammatically incorrect, but seems to be common. Because stations are proper nouns, they are to be capitalized.

Anyone have any ideas or preferences? I don't think I'll start writing these articles right away, so there is no hurry. Also, should the articles on Nonneseteren and Bygarasjen be part of the articles for Bergen Station and Bergen Bus Station? Arsenikk (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not a big issue for me, but I would prefer Foo (station) since it isn't too long. Is there any source that states that "station" or "holdeplass" is a part of the name? Maybe the decisions about the names? Rettetast (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
"Foo (station)" could be ambiguous - in the case of Kronstad and Nesttun stations, there used to be (and still is in the first case) railway stations by those names. --Aqwis (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Good point. I have looked at the political process (Bergenhus, Årstad, Fana, Fana2) and it seems to me that station, or "holdeplass", isn't supposed to be a part of the official name. Rettetast (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
The first time I read Schmincke's article in the last Lokaltrafikk I thought I saw him use the term Foo holdeplass a few times, but when looking through it again, I cannot find it, so I guess I just imagined it. As for Aqwis comments, the same problem exists in Oslo, where we have Nydalen (station) (metro) and Nydalen Station (railway), Skøyen (station) (tram) and Skøyen Station (railway), and similarly with Tøyen. In all this instance, there is a tophat that informs the reader of the other article. Works fine I think in Oslo, and keeps the article name short. Arsenikk (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
By the way, is "Lokaltrafikk" a magazine that's available somewhere on the Internet? --Aqwis (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but it is only in paper. If you join Sporveihistorisk Forening (Trondheim) or Lokalhistorisk Forening (Oslo), they send it to you. What I did, was that I bought (almost) all the issues for a heavy discounted kr. 1,250. (see here). That is why I appear to have "unlimited" access to them for the last twenty years. Arsenikk (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Future plans

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the report Fremtidig bybanenett i Bergensområdet from December 2009 of any use in the future plans sections? Some of the sources in the section are rather old. Rettetast (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Icidents

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it necessary to include all minor derailing in an article about a line? In general, they are not included in line article, unless they are fatal, result in a write-off or otherwise are spectacular. Smaller incidents are very difficult to document retrospectively, and if you look at for instance Oslo, it seems to be a fairly regular occurrence. The only supporting evidence is that it was the first accident and if it results in a delay in the opening date, then it is notable. Perhaps it should also go in the history section? Arsenikk (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Update needed

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article is indeed out of date. OK, I should have given some hints on the talk page. In fact, I actually wanted to, but real life somehow interfered (sorry about that). Anyway, the problem will not go away by simply removing the template, even if it's an eyesore.

In "Future plans", the second sentence starts with "Construction is estimated to begin in 2010..." Well, it's 2011 now and we don't know whether it has already begun or not. I don't speak Norwegian but this article seems to indicate that construction started this January and completion is scheduled for 2013. I'm not entirely sure though. This probably means that the third phase has been postponed, too. You will have to check that. If I am correct, the introduction will also have to be changed ("Construction will continue from Nesttun to Rådal in August 2010"). Another sentence that needs to be changed is "From November 1, the line will run every six minutes during the rush hour." --Voyager (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for being specific, this allowed the issues to be quickly resolved. Phase 2 is on schedule compared to what was mentioned before, it is more a discussion of what constitutes the definition of "construction started", with January being the date physical work started. Phase 3 has always had a vague date, and is not postponed because of this. Again, I find this inappropriate use of {{out of date}}. The banner does not in any way help the reader to understand that is a single date and two issues of tense which are wrong: these are better dealt with by inline template which target the issue at hand. Tagging otherwise fully-referenced and up-to-date articles may lead the reader to believe that significant portions are out of date. Arsenikk (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Right-of-way: original or not?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does the Light Rail line use the right-of-way (embankment) of the original Voss railway line, or has the alignment been modified (shifted aside) - and if so, where? -- Riggenbach (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, the line does not follow the original right-of-way. The Voss Line is still in place between the city center and Minde, and from there the Voss Line ran further west; parts of that right-of-way is now a motorway. Arsenikk (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bergen Light Rail. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bergen Light Rail. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Bergen Light Rail. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Out of date, November 2022

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Severely out of date regarding sections 4 and 5 of Bybanen. The article does cover the decisions to build these sections, but not the construction and opening of section 4 to Fyllingsdalen via Haukeland hospital in November 2022 and the plans for section 5.

Additionally, in general much of the article has not been changed since 2011. Hence the first section is described well and in full detail, whereas later changes − the extensions to Lagunen and the airport − are only mentioned rather briefly. GeorgR (de) (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bergen Light Rail

edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA from 2010. The article still holds up quite well as a description of the state in 2010/2011 and events leading up to 2010. However, there have been only the most cursory updates since then. Recent developments (of which there were quite a few) are only covered briefly, which provides a marked contrast to the extensive (still good) descriptions of earlier parts. Therefore, the article no longer fulfils GA criterias 1 and 3 for its subject. GeorgR (de) (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bergen_Light_Rail&oldid=1180548071"