Talk:M9 (railcar)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph of File:M9-yellow-bumblebee.jpg which isn't a copyvio be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Infobox[edit]
{{Infobox train}} would be nice. Peter Horn User talk 00:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, but do you know what else would be nice? Images and the ability to add it to the navbox. I suppose we can only wait until they're actually built before we can all have that. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
2008-2013 Capital Program and M9s[edit]
Just a minor detail, but I removed the info about the MTA's 2008-2013 capital program (http://web.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/2008-2013%20Capital%20Plan.pdf) which was erroneously left in the article a lot longer than it should have been. As an FYI for anybody who's not aware, the 2008-2013 capital program was proposed to use revenue from congestion pricing to fund service improvements/expansions of the MTA system (which is mentioned in the document). This program included the original base order of the M9s. Since Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal failed in the late 2000s, the 2008-2013 capital program was scrapped, and the 2010-2014 capital program (http://www.mta.info/news/2010/04/23/mta-capital-program-2010-2014 http://web.mta.info/capital/pdf/2010-2014-Program_APPROVED_reduced.pdf) replaced it, including the base order of the M9s, but the 2010-2014 program was smaller in scope.
PrecipiceofDuck (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 20 February 2020[edit]
- 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: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
M9 (railcar) → M9 (LIRR car) – It would less confusing than the disambiguation and so the article should be "rename" let's discuss which is better. Happypillsjr ✉ 01:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Vociferously Oppose. Firstly, because there are likely to be Metro-North examples, as noted in the article itself. Secondly, because it's inconsistent with the other generations of the cars and no other LIRR car uses the disambiguator, even ones that are LIRR exclusive. And finally because there's nothing confusing about the disambiguator whatsoever; it's a railcar, anything more would be overprecise for no reason whatsoever. oknazevad (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Oknazevad. Davidng913 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
"Replaced"[edit]
The information box says that the M9s replaced all remaining M3s. I don't believe this is true, and this is mentioned on the M3 page as well. They will, but I believe have not yet.
I'm not quite familiar enough with the style guide or what have you to know whether this should be fixed or not, but it's misleading.