You may be interested in the following discussions:

• WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 23#Seattle-Tacoma
• Talk:SeaTac (disambiguation)#Requested move 23 January 2026

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, SounderBruce! The list you nominated, List of Seattle Sounders (1994–2008) seasons, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ballard Link Extension, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a radio station requested changes to a light-rail project? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ballard Link Extension. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ballard Link Extension), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your revert. No new image of the Type 6's have an "unobstructed view". Do you think it's better to leave the 10 year old image up? TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 06:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie: There is no requirement to use an image of the latest model. I don't think most editors would disagree with the use of a better-quality image of an older (but still active) type, especially when Type 2s are the most plentiful around. SounderBruce 07:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but given the image is over 10 years old with pre-LED signs I'm not sure it reflects the system as it stands now. I found an image with a Type 5 that's mostly unobstructed and is more up to date. What do you think about that? TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 19:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie: That photo is too grainy. I would still prefer a like-for-like replacement (away from a station with no elements that block the train), similar to File:MAX Type 4 cars crossing 185th.JPG. SounderBruce 19:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. In fact the image suggested is even older than the current one. Perhaps we should discuss on the article's talk page. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary that the infobox image be of the newest type, but in fact there are at least two photos on Commons of a Type 6 without any foreground obstruction: this one and this one, and the first one was taken only six months ago. SJ Morg (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SJ Morg: good point, but it should be noted that I was looking for images without "glitched" LEDs. Also, the second link is broken, perhaps you meant to link this instead? TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was also trying to find an image that did not have the old rollsigns, as regardless of image age, those aren't used anymore and wouldn't really be an accurate representation. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to wait a while until someone uploads a photo of a Type 6 without a "glitched" LED sign, because the particular makes of LED signs used in TriMet's Type 1–3 and 6 LRVs require shortening the shutter speed to 1/100th second or longer for that, which effectively means the vehicle has to be stationary and the photographer has to manually adjust for that. Even I have almost no such shots of Type 6 cars, so far, even though I photograph the MAX system a lot. (SounderBruce: Feel free to restart this discussion elsewhere, with a link to here, if you prefer.) The point about rollsigns seems valid. The article should definitely have photos of them, since they were in use for 30 years, but ideally the lead image probably should be one with an LED sign – though overall good composition is important for the lead photo (and the photo that began this discussion lacks that), and so ruling out photos with messy LED signage would reduce the pool of suitable candidates too much. SJ Morg (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]