Talk:Metro (Minnesota)

Requested move 07 April 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

---

METRO (Minnesota) → Metro (Minnesota) – MOS:CAPS/MOS:TM this should not be in allcaps, it is not an acronym 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, speedy move and close - this should be completely uncontroversial. Since it is a redlink suggest next editor simply moves and closes. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Although it is operated by Metro Transit, the name used for this system does appear to be METRO. We could argue that it's just a brand, but that's certainly what they call it,[1] so I'm not sure it could be labelled entirely uncontroversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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.

Metro v.s. METRO

Seems like this article has been recently renamed as "Metro (Minnesota)". While I understand that the word 'Metro' is obviously not an acronym, but considering that this is a branding--thus a proper noun--I would like to argue that we should follow the system operator's (Metro Transit) marketing and branding scheme. Metro Transit's website and printed materials always call the system a "METRO" network, not "Metro". Any thought? Suggestion? Jonathanahn (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am confused. We have two systems both claiming to be the primary supplier in Minneapolis. I give up. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:METRO transit map Minneapolis-St. Paul.jpg

The file File:METRO transit map Minneapolis-St. Paul.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:METRO transit map Minneapolis-St. Paul.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded that file to this page to represent the current state of the Metro system (with the addition of the A and C lines, per the article). Straight from https://www.metrotransit.org/metro, as was the earlier (light-rail only) version. If I do it again, the bot will delete it again, right? How do I overcome the bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabigtrain (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro (Minnesota). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214014738/http://www.metrotransit.org/facts-about-trains-and-construction.aspx to http://www.metrotransit.org/facts-about-trains-and-construction.aspx

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) 04:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)