Talk:Mecca Metro

File:Hajj1.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hajj1.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Route information

I deleted the old "Route" section and replaced it with "Expansion". While it was detailed the old section seem to be derived from an out of date map (that it linked to) and included some inaccurate information.

That being said the `google' accessible information on the new lines is very vague for lines B & C or basically none existent for lines A & D. There also appears to be no publicly available route plan and the meccametro.com website is now offline.

For what it's worth the existing line SEEMS to be clearly marked on openstreetmaps at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/85437355 Tjej (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Confusion

This article seems to be conflating the Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah Metro and the four new lines which are planned. I'm not convinced they are the same thing: "four more metro lines in the city ... complement the 18 km Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah line".[1] News reports suggest Line A is not the same thing as the AMAMM line, and "Line E" in the article doesn't seem to appear in the sources. Wheeltapper (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the existing line off to its own page, and taken the names A-D from recent sources, rather than A-E. One news report said there will be no physical connection between the 4 new lines and the existing one, but I can't find it again. Wheeltapper (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mecca Metro. 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/20140407081119/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20121025140747 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20121025140747

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) 22:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent POV edits from possible partisan source

A number of edits recently have been made (December 2017) by User Monometro (talk) that rely on possibly partisan sources and that may transgress WP:NPOV. They present a case for the firm Monometro that relies exclusively on Monometro sources, and the user name for the editor is Monometro as well. I believe the edits are prejudicial and that they should be rolled back. I have added appropriate cleanup tags to the article. --papageno (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Qui1che: totally agree with you, but I dislike using rollback for edits that are not obvious vandalism. 1.02 editor (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, 1.02 editor. It appears SounderBruce (talk) has gone ahead and reverted things back to before Monometro's edits. I've manually restored three intermediate and legitimate edits, two by IP user 211.25.233.75 and one by the InternetArchiveBot, that were inadvertently deleted by User SounderBruce's rollback. --papageno (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)