Talk:Marshfield station

Short description dispute

A short description should be meaningful to as many readers as conveniently possible. "L" is a local term which will not be recognised by the majority of Wikipedia users, whereas rapid transit will have useful meaning to a far larger group. I changed the short description to "Former Chicago rapid transit station", which may not be perfect, but complies with WP:Short description. John M Wolfson reverted to "Former Chicago "L" station" with edit summary Undid revision 1137945970 by Pbsouthwood (talk) "Subway" means underground walkway in the UK, and "Underground" could refer to utilities, but those don't stop us from using the local terms, which does not address the fact that their preferred short description does not comply with WP:Short description as it is not useful to the average reader. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Third party suggestions for an appropriate short description for this article are requested. Please take into consideration the purpose of short descriptions. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• My point, as demonstrated by that edit summary, is that we use proper nouns such as Chicago "L" in short descriptions such as these. Myrtle Avenue station (BMT Jamaica Line) and Marcy Avenue station use New York City Subway station in Brooklyn (notice the capitalization) and I suspect the other boroughs are similar, Cockfosters tube station and Knightsbridge tube station use London Underground station (notice again the capitalization, and even the use of "tube station" in the titles, which is likely to confuse non-Brits). For another example, 15–16th & Locust station in Philadelphia uses PATCO Speedline station. Even in relatively foreign cultures, Mairie d'Aubervilliers (Paris Métro) uses Paris métro station (sick accent mark, even without capitals), and Elektrozavodskaya (Bolshaya Koltsevaya line) uses Moscow Metro station (Bolshaya Koltsevaya Line). The main counterexample I can find is with the MRT in Singapore, whose Maxwell MRT station uses MRT station in Singapore, but that's more to disambiguate the location rather than specify it's rapid transit. You might argue that such a practice is confusing to the average reader, which might be a fair point, but it isn't unique to Chicago by any means and you'd have to take this to a "higher venue" such as the Village Pump or Manual of Style to really change it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I wouldn't entirely oppose Former rapid transit station in Chicago, but I think the practice would have to be changed in other cities (with the possible exceptions of London and New York) to provide for Rapid transit station in [X] rather than the current de facto standard of using local forms in short descriptions. I doubt any particular discussion has been held on this, but if you feel fit you're certainly welcome to make an RfC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    • John M Wolfson, Thank you for your response. It may be necessary or desirable to run an RfC, but I will attempt to clarify first based on the fairly well established principles we have been using for short descriptions for a few years, as described on the WP:Short description page. I have extracted the salient points and list them below. The WP:Short description page may provide useful context where the meaning is not immediately clear. The following advice is given on how to compose a short description.
      Purpose:
      Short descriptions provide:
      • a very brief indication of the field covered by the article
      • a short descriptive annotation
      • a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields
      Content:
      A short description is not a definition and should not attempt to define the article's subject nor to summarise the lead. (it is not wrong if it does this, but it is not necessary)
      As far as possible, it should:
      • focus on the purposes stated above
      • use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional
      • avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject
      • avoid duplicating information that is already in the title (but don't worry too much if you need to repeat a word or two for context) (emphasis mine)
    • In the early days of the short description project, we concentrated on getting sufficient short descriptions added to get WMF to stop using Wikidata descriptions in mobile search results, which were of highly variable quality and suitability for the purpose, subject to vandalism which did not appear on our watchlists, and outside of Wikipedia editors' comfort zone for correction where unsuitable, Also, what is good for Wikipedia may not be what is good for Wikidata. A very tedious and quite broadly attended RfC concluded that Wikipedia content should remain in Wikipedia, and that the short descriptions are content, with context, not data.
    • There are no requirements that short descriptions must be consistent in style between articles in a Wikiproject or any other grouping. That would cause disputes of ownership between projects where an article is of interest to more than one project, but there is a logical advantage to keeping a consistent style where it complies with other requirements, so where is works, it is acceptable.
    • A related point, is that short descriptions can and should be improved when possible, so if one station's short description is improved by the standards of MOS and WP:Short description, (which is a subset of MoS, as it refers to article style), It should not be forced to match the style of other short descriptions which do not fulfil the accepted purposes of short descriptions, the other short descriptions should rather be reconsidered and improved where possible. This is relevant in this case, where a local term is used instead of a more widely recognised term. The Singapore MRT stations are another case where an initialism is used where the full term or just "rapid transit" would be more useful. Precedence and local project preferences do not override style recommended for functional reasons
    • I suggest that we already have general agreement on how short descriptions should be composed, The problem is more that many editors are not aware of this.
    • I do not see that the use or non-use of proper nouns is relevant. Either may be suitable depending on the specific case, whichever best provides the desired functionality of the short description. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You raise some great points; my point remains that notwithstanding such principles a de facto standard has arisen on transit stations to use local system names in short descriptions. I notice that your text insists that consistency is not required between short descriptions. In that respect I'll have to disagree since as noted in the text itself "there is a logical advantage to keeping a consistent style where it complies with other requirements" and "ownership disputes" shouldn't be much a problem since this is squarely in the realm of rapid transit and not much else (this is much more a rapid transit article than it is, for example, a Chicago article). Rambling aside, my point is that the standard is well-entrenched such that not using "L" in its short description would be conspicuous in its non-adherence to it. You can change it, as long as you also change the MRT and Philadelphia lines, and see if you run into any other trouble over there. If there's any further disputes I'd suggest and RfC, but eventually you might be able to change the station standards, at least outside of London and New York. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

John M Wolfson, I have notified a few affected projects and hope for some participation. Regarding the advantage of a consistent style, in this case it does conflict with other requirements, namely clarity and satisfying the fundamental purposes of short descriptions as described on the project page, so I agree that the changes should be made throughout articles with the same deficiency. Furthermore even if an article is of interest only to a single project, that project has no rights of ownership over it or any other article, and cannot require or permit style conventions that are in conflict with the consensus for the whole Wikipedia project, as Im sure you will agree. I am hoping to establish some broader agreement here before either changing a large number of short descriptions or resorting to a full scale RfC. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Avoid "Former" and use real dates where possible — Chicago rapid transit station, 1895–1954 per WP:SDAVOID — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: I think you may be over-complicating this example. "L" is primarily a Chicago area commonname. In the Chicago "L" article it is shown in quote marks. Even the CTA who owns it, uses single quote marks. I know first-hand that some people confuse it with "el", thinking it is for "elevated", not "Loop". Will the average Londoner know the difference?

It is a rapid transit line, there is no dispute there, correct? Why argue about a commonname? I think that if you want to talk about all transit articles this one may be a poor example. The name "MTA" is actually used by the "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" of somewhere, correct?

Descriptive vs. local commonname? And remember, I think you have some rapid transit knowledge and probably knew it before? Anybody who is interested in Marshfield itself will too, but are you assuming that all readers will? Moon Joon (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moon Joon: FWIW, "L" is short for "elevated", it's just spelled oddly in Chicago for historical reasons. That's probably to your point as well, but my point was that rapid transit systems used local names for short descriptions, which I see proto-consensus forming here to stop doing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: A wider POV. It's "L" to us, but that's just us. Have a nice day. Moon Joon (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson:, do you think this is sufficient agreement to change the short descriptions of the Chicago stations? If so, I suggest we go with Chicago rapid transit station, 1895–1954 as suggested by GhostInTheMachine. If not, what do you suggest as the next step? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Sounds good to me, as long as you also change short descriptions for Philadelphia, Singapore, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson:, most of the Pennsylvania stations are already Rapid transit station in Philadelphia, so not a very big job there. Feel free to do a few of the others yourself, I should have Philadelphia finished within an hour. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Philadelphia is done following the navboxes. You are free to fix anything I may have missed. At the same time got a few New Jersey stations done. Moving to Chicago next. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Chicago done, moving to Singapore. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: I'm sorry, I didn't pay that close attention, but could you change these to Rapid transit station in Chicago, dates? It's a bit more professional, not to mention that "Chicago Rapid Transit" was technically a proper noun between 1924 and 1947? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

John M Wolfson, You are welcome to change them as you suggest, but Chicago rapid transit is not a proper noun as capitalised here, (other than the 'Chicago' part of course), and both versions are short enough, so both options are quite acceptable to me. I would not confuse the one for the other. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(That is: Chicago Rapid Transit station and Chicago rapid transit station). · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(pinged) In regards to GhostInTheMachine's comment, dates don't really matter for rapid transit stations - they are not a historical event, period, or range and don't quite fall under WP:SDDATES. If one wants to avoid using proper names Former rapid transit station in Chicago would be sufficient, but Former elevated station in Chicago also works IMO. I will say that I don't think it's wrong to also use a proper name in the short description, so I think Former Chicago "L" station should also work, but it may not be clear to people unfamiliar with the topic.

As an aside, I was the editor who added all the Singapore MRT short descriptions. Since they are all in the format MRT station in Singapore, and since all Singapore MRT stations are titled "XXX MRT station", I think it would be safe to change these to Rapid transit station in Singapore. However, this is only for that specific case and is not really relevant to this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• I concur with the view that locals-only jargon should be avoided and the short descriptions made as intelligible as is feasible to a broad audience. WP has the broadest audience there is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marshfield station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 14:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I aim to finish this review on either Thursday or Friday. Steelkamp (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article criteria

Well written

• Metropolitan's main line. Maybe this whole phrase could be linked as it's not linking to main line in general.
  • "Main line" is such a generic term that linking to it would be an MOS:OVERLINK (indeed, it's a disambiguation page, which should never be linked directly); I feel that since this is a case the reader might expect the "main line" link to go somewhere more specific, but if you believe I'm giving our readers too much credit I can tweak the link. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

    Then use [[Metropolitan main line|Metropolitan's main line]].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

    • Yes, that's exactly what I was initially arguing against above. It appears consensus thinks otherwise, though, so done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think "hand-thrown" is a phrase known by most people.
  • I've tried linking it, but I don't any article or link on either Wikipedia or even Wiktionary.
• East of the station, trains crossed over such that the northern tracks and southern tracks were each a bidirectional pair. This isn't clear. Particularly the phrase "bidirectional pair".
  • I've tried tweaking it, hopefully this is better, especially in the context of the following "Logan Square/Humboldt used the northern tracks, Garfield/Douglas used the southern tracks".
• Marshfield had two island platforms, one each between an inner and outer track. This might be a good place to mention the third platform rather than only mention it halfway through the paragraph.
  • Done; I also moved the pedestrian bridge stuff (see below) to that point.
• As originally opened, the Metropolitan's trains ran every six minutes between 6 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and every ten minutes during the night; the average speed was 16 mph (26 km/h). This is referring to the main line frequency right?
  • It was on the main line and Northwest branch, which were the only two lines open at the time. I tried to make things clearer in that regard.

Verifiable with no original research

• a pedestrian bridge linked both "L" platforms and the CA&E platform. I may have missed it, but where in the sources does it say this?
  • If you look at the 1952 "L" map, you'll see a series of lines linking all three platforms, similar to what photographic evidence shows. For a clearer example on the map, see the bridges depicted for the stations in the Loop on that same map.

Spotchecks done for refs 36, 43, 44, 31 and 18.

Broad in its coverage

• Unlike the Lake Street Elevated, which operated cars for smoking at some times but not at others, all of the Metropolitan's motor cars allowed smoking.[11] Smoking was banned by the city across the "L" and in streetcars in response to a 1918 influenza outbreak, a prohibition that has remained in force ever since.[50] Nevertheless, the CA&E still allowed smoking as late as 1948, splitting its cars into smoking and non-smoking components. This should be removed as it has very little to do with the station itself.
• Same with the entire section on fares. It has very little to do with the station and results in unnecessary duplication of other articles.
• The streetcar stuff can be cut out too. I would just leave it as the following: A streetcar ran on the nearby Ashland Avenue by the late 19th century. Another one ran on Van Buren Street adjacent to the Metropolitan's tracks. Such streetcars were a competitor to the Metropolitan, siphoning many of its would-be passengers during the warm summer months as their cars were more open-air.
  • I condensed the fare stuff into the "Operations" section, replacing the smoking stuff in the process. As for the streetcar stuff, I kept a bit more information than you suggested but also trimmed it considerably.

Illustrated, if possible

• Both images are fine in terms of copyright and I'm glad there's alt text included.

• • @Steelkamp: Hopefully this resolves your concerns. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

General

• That graph is really wide. Can it be narrowed?
  • Is this better? I could go even narrower but I don't want to squish things too much. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Can comma separators be added to the numbers in the graph per MOS:DIGITS?
  • Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• @John M Wolfson: The last thing I'll ask you is about the external link. What is GPS VIDEO. My thinking is that if its an amateur/fan video, it should not be an external link. Steelkamp (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Steelkamp: I think it's nice to have some video (especially in color) of a station that's been gone for half a century; it is, to loosely quote WP:ELNO, a unique resource that the article would not already include were it a Featured Article. My main concern with WP:ELNEVER is with copyright, but upon informaiton and belief (i.e., looking at the YouTube channel) I think GPS VIDEO is the actual copyright owner of the footage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

    Ok. After reading WP:YOUTUBE, I think it's fine. I will pass the review now. Steelkamp (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)