Jump to content

Talk:History of the Long Island Rail Road

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Thank you, NE2 for catching the references and other important paraphernalia. The split seems mostly done, a little quicker than I feared it might be. This is something like the fourth or fifth split I've done, and by far the biggest. Fortunately the big article was already very neatly laid out, so keeping it neat wasn't terribly diffiuclt. In the next few hours I'll go over the now small LIRR article, and see whether any other bits ought to be moved, copied or otherwise patched, but probably you're way ahead of me in every way. Jim.henderson 02:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might actually make the most sense to place fleet in a new article; there is a lot that can be added but that I'm not interested in. --NE2 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still a big article

[edit]

Yes, a lot of fans love the rail more than the choo-choo. This article still exceeds guideline by some 60% but that's not so important for a topic that people only read for love rather than practical information on how to get to Cedarhurst. If someone actually adds a lot more rolling stock, then certainly a new article for it would become appropriate. As it is, the fleet material is quite slim. If we really wanted to slim down the article to fit the guidelines, the red links for South Side and other predecessors would point out the places to move several fat sections into. This work would require more knowledge of substance than I've got; my ignorance of railroading suits me better to deal with questions of style. Jim.henderson 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's a lot to say about those predecessors; I only included a paragraph on each to give the basics. --NE2 03:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness yes, much can be said. Already the article goes well beyond the conventional encyclopedia formula of just hitting the high points. Its more a matter (sorry, my apostrophe key is stuck) of how much fun it is to write. Were it vital to fit the length guidelines, then the B&J article, now a stub, could accept almost all that the present article says on that line. The late 19th century could be moved into the Tobin biographical article, one or three articles could cover the various Flushing railroads, the tunnel articles could soak up nearly all data about Manhattan, and otherwise things could be moved out from this fat article.
But often an article, like a railroad under construction, has one guiding spirit driving it, and for this one it isnt me, so I shall butt out except where there is a clear need, as there was a need to split off the history from the railroad article. Oh, and three sentences for the History section of the railroad article was my plan, too. One for 19th century, one for Pennsy and its tunnels, and one for MTA. Anyway it is done, and at least as well done as I could have. Jim.henderson 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of lines in 1877

[edit]

This information is from "Long Island". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 22 August 1877. p. 1. and [1]. --NE2 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an 11 year old thread, but I believe this map should explain a great deal. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

There is a full timetable in Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 30 May 1897. p. 8. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) and page 9: [2]. --NE2 06:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

How come so many red links? Are they intended to give an impression of inattentiveness, in hopes of attracting a more dilligent editor? To indicate the unimportance of the unwritten articles? To suggest an inability to use comments in the source as a reminder of work undone? Jim.henderson 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Red link#Dealing with existing red links and stop the sarcasm. --NE2 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, the paragraph makes it pretty clear that these dead links do little to serve any purpose, since many are duplicative or name obscure topics or both, which is why they remain dead and are unlikely to come alive. So, does that mean it's time to start removing at least the duplications? Jim.henderson 14:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. --NE2 21:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's how I sometimes feel about my pot belly. It's not pretty or useful, but it's mine and other people don't have to look at it. Jim.henderson 08:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Long Island Herald.png

[edit]

Image:Long Island Herald.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Original MTA LIRR logo.png

[edit]

Image:Original MTA LIRR logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Brook University has a resource for researchers: Robert M. Emery Long Island Rail Road Collection

[edit]

I just came across this resource: www.stonybrook.edu/libspecial/collections/manuscripts/emery.shtml that describes

Robert M. Emery Long Island Rail Road Collection - Manuscript Collection 243

Description: Long Island Rail Road collection, 1895-1974. 10 cubic ft. (40 scrapbooks, 262 timetables). Organization: Arranged geographically by railroad line, and chronologically by timetable. Detailed pencil drawings of Long Island Rail Road tracks, with explanatory notes by Emery; over 5,000 identified photographs and postcards of construction, wrecks, engines, trains, depots, conductors, and other railroad scenes; 262 timetables; and other material relating to the railroad.

If anyone needs details for articles about the LIRR, this may be a great resource.--Arg342 (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, I went to Stony Brook U to gather info from the Vincent Seyfried collection, but I was only able to gather research for one short afternoon. By the time the library was closing, the clerk there mentioned the Bob Emery collection, and that's when I realized I goofed big time. I haven't been back to Stony Brook in my more recent trips to Long Island, but I've always kept the Bob Emery collection in mind. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Long Island Rail Road. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Long Island Rail Road. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1893

[edit]

Just noticed that a serious rail accident on Aug. 26, 1893 (16 killed, 40 injured?) doesn't seem to appear in this article. A search on "long island rail aug 26 1893" turns up a scattering of info. (Was that train part of another line at that time?)

It is briefly mentioned (with one, shaky cite) in the Long Island Rail Road article. ('Maspeth, Queens' mention). Didn't find much better in the NYTimes archive. Thought worth a mention. Twang (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Long_Island_Rail_Road&oldid=1202734177"