Talk:R1 King George Blvd

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the R1 King George Blvd article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Vancouver Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VancouverWikipedia:WikiProject VancouverTemplate:WikiProject VancouverVancouver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: British Columbia Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:R1 King George Blvd.

Is this really a bus rapid transit line?

The lead sentences describes this bus route as a bus rapid transit line.

Is this really a bus rapid transit line? Isn't the term bus rapid transit usually reserved for bus routes that run, at least partially, in a dedicated right of way? Geo Swan (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More Verifiability and pictures of King George RapidBus

The picture is not really the 96 B Line, it should be the RapidBus image. We will have to wait and see whether we can have that picture replaced or not. NicholasHui (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved because there seems to be clear agreement that "Boulevard" (or "Blvd") must be part of the title. A lot of the discussion focused on issues that concern all four RapidBus articles, such as whether the street names should be abbreviated and whether "RapidBus" should be included in the titles, reaching no consensus. A new RM including the three other articles may lead to a clearer consensus. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R1 King George RapidBus → R1 King George Boulevard – "Boulevard" needs to be included in the title, which shouldn't be controversial; however, do we need to include "RapidBus" in the title as well? Wayfinding maps do not included "RapidBus" in the title, unlike with the "B-Line" service. —Northwest (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premature move aside, the whole naming scheme for the RapidBus lines are a mess. They definitely do need to include RapidBus to properly disambiguate them for readers, and should be shortened as much as possible. Also, in-station signage has been determined to not be a reliable source for article names, per very long discussions at WT:USSTATION and similar outlets. With that in mind, I think we should harmonize the articles under format R# [Line Name] (RapidBus) and use the shortened names listed on TransLink's website here: R1 King George Blvd (RapidBus), R3 Lougheed Hwy (RapidBus), R4 41st Ave (RapidBus), and R5 Hastings St (RapidBus). Sounder Bruce 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm no, if we don't need "RapidBus" to disambiguate, we definitely don't include it for the sake of inclusion, as per WP:CONCISE. The official names look like they are:

R1 King George Blvd
R3 Lougheed Hwy
R4 41st Ave
R5 Hastings St

as per [1]. I assume those are unique in terms of article names. If we decide "RapidBus" is required to identify the articles properly, we def should not use parentheses as per WP:NATURALDIS. In that case, we should do "R4 41st Ave RapidBus". —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support abbreviating the street suffix. —Northwest (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with any permutation that has the shortened names and RapidBus in some form. Other systems seem to use Line X (System) without problems, even if the specific line has no competing uses (e.g. Line 28 (Beijing Subway)). Sounder Bruce 04:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above, with all "RapidBus" pages following after the R# [Line Name] (RapidBus) suggestion. This clearly denotes each route and also includes the "RapidBus" name - differentiating it from say, the "B-Line" branding. Peytonliscomb (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to include "RapidBus" in the title, then @Joeyconnick: suggestion should be the correct way to include it; however, per WP:COMMONNAME: many third-party sources do not include "RapidBus" with the line names.[2][3][4][5] —Northwest (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not seeing why it's necessary to lengthen the article names, which would be unique as is; for example, "R1 King George Blvd". No one is going to mistake that for a different R1, unlike in the case of the B-Lines, where 95, 96, 97, 98, etc. could refer to many, many different things. I think given that the official names don't seem to include the "RapidBus" branding, and we have multiple sources not including it (no doubt because it would writing about them extremely tedious if people had to constantly tack on "blah blah blah RapidBus!"), then as per WP:CONCISE, it should not be included.

There's also the issue of the camelcasing... RapidBus. Under MOS:TM, we don't ape that unless the vast preponderance (i.e. nearly all) sources do (e.g. iPhone, eBay, PlayStation) and that's about trademarks specifically... not sure if TransLink's had attempted to trademark "RapidBus". But because these route names are so new, I'm not sure we can really determine if everyone will use the camelcasing... which is another reason to avoid the issue and just leave out "Rapidbus"/"RapidBus". —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.