Talk:Endicott station

Level of detail

@Briancua: Pedestrian strikes happen everywhere there are trains - the MBTA had over 30 fatal strikes in 2017 alone - and Endicott is neither known for deaths of notable people nor being a particularly dangerous spot. Lacking either of those two conditions, I don't see why it's worth mentioning pedestrian strikes in the article. We don't mention every car crash on a given road. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That's true, but I am an inclusionist. Given that we are aiming to become the sum of all human knowledge, and that this is not a WP:PAPER encyclopedia, I see little harm in including them in a footnote. Should someone famous die there someday, or if it becomes more dangerous in general, this research will be here waiting. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not about inclusionism versus deletionism - it's about whether it's relevant and useful for readers to include, which means exercising editorial control rather than including every trivial detail. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is an encyclopedia - a collection of the most important information about a topic useful as a starting point for research. Several other of your Dedham history articles have the same issue where they present a level of detail appropriate to an academic journal, town history book, or LocalWiki rather than Wikipedia. I suggest you look at Lynn station and Brockton station (MBTA) - they are articles that I've written that strike a more appropriate balance between detail and succinctness. Remember - these articles are designed to be read by a wide audience, and too much detail can make an article effectively unreadable.

More specifically here: non-notable deaths of non-notable people are not relevant to include, even as a footnote, and saying "There have also been a number of accidents at the station" comes perilously close to being WP:OR. If a notable person is killed there, or there is a reason for a non-notable person's death to be considered notable, that information can be included then. (See for example Mansfield station (MBTA), where there was a particularly gory and notable death, and newspapers have specifically noted the high danger there.) There is no reason to include non-notable deaths now under the faint possibility it will be relevant in the future. If you're not convinced by me, Wikiproject Trains will likely feel very similarly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The notability guidelines apply to whether articles should exist or not. They don't apply to content. Including information about pedestrian strikes in a footnote does not violate any of the content policies, and every statement is sourced. I don't find any policy that says they should not be included and, with respect, your argument that the articles you have written "strike a more appropriate balance" sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKE to me. I don't wish to edit war over this, but I will restore the footnote for the time being. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you're quite literally edit warring, and I'm tired of it. Your opinions on the level of detail that applies to articles do not match those of the majority of Wikipedia - just because something can be sourced doesn't mean that it belongs in an article. You're failing to respond to the basic fact that pedestrian strikes are sufficiently common (10-30 a year on the MBTA alone) that mentioning every one would represent a large part of many station articles, and also that specifically calling out pedestrian strikes at Endicott unduly implies that it is a particularly dangerous situation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: I have posted at Wikiproject Trains asking for additional comments here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The article should include only the significant events in the station's history, and in almost all circumstances passengers or pedestrians hit by a train are not. There are exceptions, but as a rule of thumb unless you can write at least two or three sentences about an incident, that are supported by reliable secondary sources, then it isn't going to be notable enough for a mention. A single sentence along the lines of "the station is noted as one of the most dangerous for pedestrian fatalities" might be appropriate in some cases if there is a reliable source (preferably secondary) saying such. See Elsenham railway station for an example of what a notable pedestrian fatality looks like. Liverpool James Street railway station does not mention the 2011 fatality at that station which resulted in an independent investigation and mainstream national news coverage of the prosecution, trial, conviction and sentencing of the train guard. There is a mention of a fatal accident at Tackley railway station, again investigated by the RAIB, but that goes into excessive detail in my opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Per Thryduulf, the vast majority of these accidents are not notable enough to be mentioned. It is arguable that the Liverpool James Street accident should be mentioned, given the outcome. The Elsenham accident is notable. Another example of a notable pedestrian fatality accident is the Castelldefels train accident. These are very rare examples of notable accidents though. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Thryduulf and Mjroots. Can one of you cite a policy that says accidents must be significant or notable to be included? Also, remember that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a policy, but the widely accepted standard WP:CON is applicable across Wikipedia. There's also the essay WP:MILL, which the vast majority of these accidents fall under. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Briancua: WP:NOTEVERYTHING is policy, see also the subsections WP:NOTNEWS (particularly point 2) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:MILL talks about articles, not content. WP:NOTEVERYTHING does talk about content, but in a way that supports my argument: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." The only details included about these accidents are the years, and they are in a footnote to boot. WP:NOTNEWS also talks about articles. It wants to make sure the article does not become a news story. This footnote also does not resemble anything in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You are now dangerously close to wikilawyering - the spirit of everything at WP:NOT applies to article content as well as articles themselves (and even making the hard distinction is unhelpful). If you do insist on making the distinction then WP:MILL also talks about article content: "For such a commonplace item to be worthy for inclusion in an article, there must be sources provided other than those that would source so many others just like it. This shows that there is also something unusual, something unique about that subject so that the article is not just blank is blank (which would essentially be a dictionary entry) and that it does not resemble hundreds of other articles by containing mostly the same words with a few fill-in-the-blanks.". The point everybody other than you here is making is that that these events are not notable enough for a mention (whether inline or in a footnote) in this article - it is excessive detail. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Briancua As I understand it, there are three incidents under discussion. Can you show how any of the three sufficiently notable that they can break out of WP:MILL? To guide you, there was a major investigation, changes were made, and there was a prosecution at Elsenham. At Liverpool James Street there was a major investigation and prosecution. At Castelldefells there were multiple fatalities. The threshold of notability is far higher than a single death. There have to be other factors involved too. I do hope this is not a case of WP:IDHT, as these rarely end well. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be a conversation about notability: are the accidents notable enough to include in the article? Unless sufficient evidence can be provided on the contrary, I don't believe they are. –Daybeers (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Universal Hub

Pi reverted an edit saying that Universal Hub is "essentially a personal blog, and generally not a RS." I disagree.

For one thing, it is not as if Adam Gaffin, the publisher, is writing about his personal life. The content is all news about the Greater Boston area. Additionally, the site describes itself as "a community news and information site for the Boston area" and notes that "Gaffin has spent his entire adult life as a reporter and editor" and that he "consults with small media organizations and start-ups seeking to develop community-oriented news sites."

I suppose anyone can call themselves a reporter and that wouldn't make it so, but other RS also refer to UHub as an RS. See, for example, Northeastern University's School of Journalism which says "Universal Hub tracks news in the Boston area from the serious to the just plain weird." Also, as far back as 2009, media expert Dan Kennedy was publicly encouraging the Boston Globe to hire Gaffin. Other RS also cite UHub.

I believe UHub is an RS and so am reverting. If anyone still disagrees, I would be happy to let the fine people at WP:RSN weigh in. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: It's still a self-published source without editorial oversight, and the articles are opinion pieces rather than just-the-facts journalism: The T didn't say which bridge, but if we were a betting site, we'd put good money on the ol' East Street bridge, which gets hit by truckers enough to be made an honorary Storrow Drive bridge. UHub is okay for basic factual information - I'm not questioning Adam's credibility - but that quote is personal opinion, and we generally do not quote the personal opinions of journalists. Additionally, given that the bridge is tangential to the article subject, that pull quote wouldn't be a useful addition regardless of the source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: I see that you've re-added this source and quote with no explanation. All of my objections above still apply - it is a self-published opinion piece without editorial oversight, and there's no indication that the quote is reflective of larger consensus rather than the author's personal opinion. WP:SPS applies, and there's nothing other than the quote that's not covered in more detail by other sources.

Additionally, I'd like to discuss some of the other elements of your recent edits:

• There's no reason for a separate level 2 header for the East Street bridge; at most it should be a level 3 header under history. It's unlikely to ever expand more than another two sentences or so.
• Citing the The Dedham Times concerns me for several reasons. It's a low-circulation, offline newspaper that's only kept in a single library's collection; if that collection becomes unavailable, the citation is permanently unverifiable. Is there anything in that article that's relevant here and isn't included in the online source I added? If so, it would be best to use the |quote= citation parameter to add the relevant text. It also appears to be run by one person (from what I can gather - the paper's website contains no information about its ownership or staff); if so, it's also a case of SPS.
• Is there a compelling reason to use list-formatted references here? You were the one who boldly changed to that format; there doesn't appear to have been outside consensus to do so. Since most of the references are only used once, I find it better to keep them with the cited text rather than separately. Every other MBTA-related article keeps the reference text inline, which has been the case since before I even started editing them. I don't see a reason to have this article be an exception.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Taking your comments in order:

• Yes, I did restore it. I did so after you deleted it with no explanation. I simply brought it back to the version that has been there for a year.
• I have no issue with making it a level 3 header. I'll do so now. Or, if you really object, I don't feel terribly strongly about folding it back into the history section altogether. It just was taking up half of the history section, and was the single longest topic there, at which point I figured it deserved a subsection.
• I'm not sure to which library you are referring, but the Dedham Times appears to be kept in the Library of Congress. If they think it is important enough to keep, then that is good enough for me. If you want to check in with WP:RSN, that's fine with me as well, but I think you would have a tough case to make that a for-profit newspaper that has been in circulation for more than 30 years and serves as the newspaper of record for a community is SPS and not a RS. I also don't have access to the issue from 2019 anymore (the citation was there for several years; I just restored it after you deleted it without explanation), but in the future I would be glad to use the quote parameter more.
• This seems to be a case of competing personal preferences. I find it very hard to edit wikitext with citations inline. I guess the reason to make this be the exception is that it has been this way for six years. If there is a clear consensus to change it, however, I won't object.

--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Do you dispute the reasoning I provided above? If not I would like to remove it; if yes I will ask RSN.
• I don't have a strong opinion whether it should currently have a header or not. The rest of the history will grow longer (especially once there's a project to make the station accessible); when it's longer enough to have multiple subsections, this will certainly be a subsection.
• Worldcat only shows Dedham, Minuteman Library Network (whose catalog only shows Dedham having it), the Boston Public Library, and the Massachusetts Newspaper Project (part of BPL). The LOC record does not indicate that the LOC has a copy; it only shows BPL having it - and only updated to 12/1996. (The BPL catalog indicates they only have three volumes, which means they likely only have the first few years.)

The LOC record also just means they have record of it as a newspaper; it doesn't indicate anything about bias, reliability, or editorial control. Looking through their Massachusetts list, I certainly wouldn't expect the Daily Socialist, Excelsior : A Journal of the Sons of Temperance, the The Anti-Universalist, or the Anti-Monarchist and Republican Watchman to be free of editorial bias, though I really want to know the story behind that last one.

Being for-profit and long-lasting doesn't inherently make it a reliable source nor preclude it being self-published - there are certainly some personal newsletters that fit the former categories. The question is whether there is editorial oversight of the stories, and the available information leaves that very much in doubt. Being a newspaper of public record (authorized to print notices) is very different from being a newspaper of record by opinion; the latter has assumed reliability, the former does not. In a smallish town like Dedham with only two total papers, it's not surprising that even a weekly ends up as a newspaper of public record.

• There was no clear consensus to change it in 2018; I certainly disagreed, but I was more worried about the issues discussed in the first section above. Another issue with list-formatted references is that they cannot be edited (or removed) when editing a section. Again: is there any benefit to using list-formatted references here, or is it solely your personal preference?

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, taking them in order:

• I am not sure where you are getting the idea that The Dedham Times is only run by one person. Could you please cite a source for that? As to it only being available at one library and not online, I'd point you to WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE.
• I don't see you registering any objections to changing the reference style in 2018 or at any point before now. After six years without objection, a consensus has formed to keep it this way. It is my preference because it avoids WP:INLINECLUTTER. Using WP:LDR "keeps those citations in one central location for easier maintenance and avoids cluttering the text."

--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Dedham Times about whether it should be considered a self-published source.
• Yes, I am aware of those pages. This is a highly specific case where only a single formal archive exists and the specifics of the source (paper-only thus no online copies, limited local circulation; readers are probably less likely to keep newspapers than magazines or books) mean that other copies are unlikely to exist. Given that difficulty of verification, and that the online source with no RS doubts contains all the relevant information, and that you no longer have your copy to add a quote, what benefit to readers is there to keeping it in the article?
• Let me be clear: the reason I did not raise an objection then was because my more immediate concern was the topic of this discussion. While list-defined references have benefits in certain cases, I don't believe they're relevant here given the small article size, and there are significant downsides including the incompatibility with Visual Editor and the inability to do section editing. The only reasoning you have given is that you prefer it, and that I didn't revert it soon enough. It shouldn't require lengthy talk page discussions every time someone else wants to change your preferred version of the article.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've commented on the reliability of the source on RSN. I think it is best to keep it in one place so won't comment here.
• We both have valid reasons for our preferred citation style. Both have benefits and drawbacks. However, after you were bold and changed the format, you were reverted. The correct course is to take it to talk here, which you have done. Since there does not seem to be a consensus to change it, it should remain the way it was before, and that is with LDR.
• Along those lines, you deleted the line comparing the bridge to Storrow Drive. You were then reverted. I am not sure why you decided to delete the line again without changing the consensus first. As pointed out again, that line has been in there for a year. I know you don't like it, but that is long enough to declare an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS in favor of inclusion. I am going to revert back to the consensus version and ask that you not continue edit warring.
• Thanks for expanding the history, with all of the details in <! > for lines of future research.

-- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

At this point, it is clear that you believe you have final say over any aspect of the article because it relates to Dedham. It shouldn't require lengthy talk page discussions every time someone else wants to change your preferred version of the article. Since you have been ignoring pertinent questions, I will make it extra clear what I am asking:

• WP:CITEVAR says that Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change... It also later lists conversion to LDR without consensus as something to avoid. Where did you seek consensus before making the change in 2018?
• You've added only four of the current 20 citations; I've added 16. Of those, I've edited two, which has required the inconvenience of leaving a section edit, and two I don't think belong in the article at all. Given the substantial split in who has added citations, why is your personal preference more important? Why have you converted citations I recently added to LDR, despite no consensus to do so? (WP:LDR starts off by saying Some or all of the footnotes..., so clearly there is no requirement that 100% of citations in an article be list-defined.)
• What is your disagreement with the reasoning I provided above for removing the UHub citation and quote? You've re-added it twice since I first listed my reasoning, yet you have not provided any counterargument. I did not immediately re-revert because I was waiting for a reply that never came. That's a truly poor basis on which to claim implicit consensus.
• Given that difficulty of verifying citations to The Dedham Times, and that the online source with no RS doubts contains all the relevant information, and that you no longer have your copy to add a quote, what benefit to readers is there to keeping it in the article?

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to OWN anything. However, I do object when there is a consensus and then another editor comes in and starts edit warring to get what she wants. Now to your questions:

• Where did you seek consensus before making the change in 2018? -- I didn't. I was BOLD. No one objected for six years. That's a consensus. If you can change the consensus, then by all means change the style.
• Why have you converted citations I recently added to LDR, despite no consensus to do so? -- I did so because WP:CITESTYLE says that "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." I explained this in the edit summary. Also, since OWNership accusations are flying around, I will say that a count of who has added more content sounds a lot like statement 2.
• What is your disagreement with the reasoning I provided above for removing the UHub citation and quote? - As I said above, I think Universal Hub is a RS. If you do a quick search, you will find citations to it across Wikipedia. Also, when the bridge makes up 2/6 paragraphs (plus an endnote), I don't know that I would call it tangential.
• ...what benefit to readers is there to keeping it in the article? -- When I am doing research on a topic, I frequently have two bookmarks going: one on the page where I am reading and one on the page of the endnote. There may be a detail in the newspaper that didn't find its way into this article that a researcher can find. Also, again, I point you to WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access."

--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's very clear that we will not reach agreement on any of these topics (whether to use list-defined references, whether UHub and TDT are reliable, whether the UHub quote is relevant, whether it's useful to include the TDT cite, and whether to include the former bridge schedule) just discussing between the two of us, and thus other opinions are needed. Some possible options:

• Asking the editors who commented above in 2018 for their opinions - 2 of the 3 are still active.
• Asking other editors who frequent this topic area but may not have this article watchlisted
• Posting notices at relevant WikiProjects (Trains, Massachusetts, etc)
• Using the WP:3O system

Any preference(s)? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You've already started a discussion at RSN about The Dedham Times. I guess I would go there for UHub as well. That way it is settled for future use everywhere, and not just here. I'd probably go 3O for the others. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)