User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from January 2022 (the end of Archive 16) to May 2022. Please don't modify it. If you wish to revive a discussion, please start a new section on my main talk page and link to the discussion here.

Your GA nomination of Babcock Street station

The article Babcock Street station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Babcock Street station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Amory Street station

The article Amory Street station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amory Street station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Green Line Extension

The article Green Line Extension you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Green Line Extension for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Church Street station (MBTA)

The article Church Street station (MBTA) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Church Street station (MBTA) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Box District station

The article Box District station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Box District station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Middleborough/Lakeville station

The article Middleborough/Lakeville station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Middleborough/Lakeville station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Freetown station

The article Freetown station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Freetown station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Amory Street station

On 7 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amory Street station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Amory Street station and Babcock Street station replaced four predecessor stations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amory Street station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Amory Street station), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Babcock Street station

On 7 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Babcock Street station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Amory Street station and Babcock Street station replaced four predecessor stations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amory Street station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Babcock Street station), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Bay Ferry map

FYI: [1]. The below parameter isn't exposed. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I modified the infobox to support maps a while back, but forgot about this one. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More help needed with maps

I would like to add better maps to a number of articles, in the style of the existing ones at Museum of Science (Boston) and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. For example, the newly-overhauled articles Rhode Island School of Design Museum and Downtown, Providence, Rhode Island could use better maps that show both close-in detail, and their overall location within the US for the benefit of international readers.

It is very clear that I need to improve my fluency in specifying and searching for suitable maps. Can you help me with these immediate problems, and also point me to a usable introduction to Wikipedia map searching and selection? I don't necessarily want to make my own maps, but I want to be able to quickly find which Wikipedia maps are available covering a given geographic coordinate. Also, if a suitable map of say, Providence RI does not exist yet, is there a way to queue up a request for the mapmaker wizards?

I am also looking for an overview of what kinds of maps are available, and which types are recommended for particular uses. I know that there has been a trend to use Open Street Maps, replacing Google Maps or other sources, but I don't know the extent to which OSM is now recommended or required instead of other sources. For example, I don't know how [File:Providence Downtown Locator.svg] was created, or how to get such a map created, if needed.

I appreciate your quick fluency in creating elegant and simple maps such as [File:Harvard stations simplified map.svg], which greatly improved the clarity of the historical section of the Harvard station article. I will still rely on your assistance, but wish to be a little more self-sufficient in the basics of finding and using maps for run-of-the-mill infoboxes. Thanks in advance for your magnanimity! Reify-tech (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to help! Mapframe OSM maps (as seen on RISD Museum) seem to be the general direction things are headed, but the older location maps (as on the MFA) are still very common. For the former, most infobox templates already support mapframes. Often, it will be automatically shown if the coordinates are on Wikidata, or with a single parameter - see here for example.

For the latter, you can see an available list at Template:Location map/List. For Providence, we'd need to create a module similar to Module:Location map/data/USA Rhode Island. That just requires a map of the Providence area (SVG preferred, but JPG/PNG is okay too) with the coordinates of the corners precisely known. That's totally doable, but it might not be worthwhile for a relatively small number of articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the maps as they initially appear in Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, since they convey the overall geographic context at a glance, although clicking on them doesn't appear to support panning or zooming within the maps. But although the mapframe, as in Rhode Island School of Design Museum, doesn't convey anywhere near the same amount of info at a glance, it does allow panning and zooming for a much more thorough exploration of the geography. Is there some way to get the best of both methods?

As for finding available maps, I recently had discovered Template:Location map/List, but was hoping that maybe there was a more-complete list, or a more-thorough way of searching. I was a bit disappointed in the available selection of maps. For example, searching for Cambridge or Somerville (both in Massachusetts) turned up nothing, as did a search for Providence RI or Albany NY. New York has almost a dozen, including one just for the NYCTA subway system. I wasn't surprised that the San Francisco Bay area has maybe a half-dozen maps covering different areas – did you have anything to do with that? Oregon and Virginia have a lot of coverage, which I assume means that some map editor(s) volunteered to do the work of creating them.

As for Providence, there are a fair number of articles that could benefit from a closer-in city map, since the downtown area is quite walkable, and has a lot of sites with Wikipedia articles. How or who does one ask to get an appropriate map set up? A map showing Downtown, Providence, Rhode Island and the cultural district, plus the immediately-adjacent parts of College Hill, Providence, Rhode Island where RISD and Brown University are located would be quite useful.

Last but not least, do you know of any introductory or tutorial material in Wikipedia that would be useful for editors wishing to use maps in articles (as opposed to creating them)? Even knowing the peculiar map terminology or jargon would be useful. For example, I don't know what to call the three nested levels of maps (such as in the MFA Boston article), and thus can't even search for more info about them. Reify-tech (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any way to get the best of both methods, unfortunately. I've done next to nothing with these kind of maps; the Bay Area ones weren't by me. Most infoboxes have pretty good documentation for what maps they support; see {{Infobox museum}} for example. You can often find the correct terminology there.

For the Providence map, I'm attempting to create one with the instructions at Template:Location map/Creating a new map definition. I'll update you when it's functional. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reify-tech: I've created Module:Location map/data/USA Rhode Island Providence (and redirect Module:Location map/data/Providence to allow use of the shorter name); you can see how to add it here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to the rescue again! I thank you in behalf of any future editors of articles about Providence RI. The map you set up was exactly what I had in mind, and it sets the geographic context perfectly.

I took a quick look at the instructions for creating a map, and my eyes glazed over. I think I will rely on your help with creating maps, just like I rely on you to deal with railway topological maps (or whatever they are called). We each have our specialties, and I really appreciate your help when needed. Reify-tech (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)As someone who just moved to Providence, and has an interest in trains, you both have my thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Union Square station (Somerville)

The article Union Square station (Somerville) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Union Square station (Somerville) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Trains2050 -- Trains2050 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cuevo, NM.

Don't Remove my addition. I know from first hand expirence that the ramo is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiserYT (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChiserYT: First, please read WP:OR and WP:V. Personal observations are not accepted as sources on Wikipedia. Second, your claims are verifiably false, as the eastbound exit ramp was in use in 2021. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the New Mexico Department of Transportation project schedule: https://estip.dot.state.nm.us/

If you filter by Guadalupe County, you can see that this corridor being referred to is in the process of going under major changes spanning from this year, 2022, to 2026. It is unlikely that the 2021 Google Maps image would be accurate in this light, and the page should probably be updated to say the New Mexico DOT is reconstructing this corridor at the very least.

Interstate highway projects are always going to be documented in some way, especially if they involve federal funding, and there aren't many actual reasons for making a change like this other than observing it. Next time, check the jurisdiction DOT's project list before reverting. It would make more sense to go through the steps to verify information before declaring it unverifiable or even false. --Middle river exports (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Middle river exports: It's a reasonable choice to revert an addition that (a) has no references, (b) didn't capitalize I-40, and (c) wasn't quickly verifiable on Google Maps (normally an accurate source of driving information relied on by many people). As the article stands it's still unreferenced and still not capitalized. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that you followed Pi there from his talk page, which per WP:HOUND isn't cool. Mackensen (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been consistently reverting verifiable edits using out of date sources based on misguided understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. WP:HOUND is not applicable here. It also gets an eye roll considering this editor made incorrect changes to multiple Baltimore Light Rail articles *after* I provided more accurate and update sources, but that's neither here nor there, there's no point to this kind of bad faith engagement and willful misinterpretation of the guidelines.

> Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles

This is an unambiguous error, and results in a correction to an article. Relying on out of date information to revert accurate information is the problem here.

It is not a reasonable choice to revert given the context. Highways have a short lifespan and are expensive to maintain, and Cuervo is a ghost town - it was a matter of when, not if, that highway exit was decommissioned. Google Maps is not a reliable or accurate source of information and has temporal constraints. On sites more focused on geographic information like OpenStreetMap, that would not be accepted as a source. In the vast majority of cases that something is notable enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia, there is a readily available source that is more accurate and up to date than Google Maps.

If an editor cannot take the time to do due diligence and verify information that can be deduced to be credible from its context, it shouldn't be reverted based on out of date source under the mistaken belief that it is more correct. It should either be brought to a discussion first, or left alone so it can be addressed by someone more familiar with the topic. Wikipedia doesn't delete every stub article upon arrival, there is a procedure for these things for a reason. --Middle river exports (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is pretty classic hounding behavior. You're in a dispute over the correct naming of Baltimore Light Rail articles. Thorny, given apparent inconsistency on the part of the MTA. I don't doubt anyone's good faith in that respect. You then followed Pi to an article about a highway in New Mexico--pretty far from Baltimore!--on an unrelated matter. This is not an unambiguous error, as I've explained above, and certainly not within the exceptions for WP:HOUND. I won't belabor the point, but any future dispute resolution process would look very skeptically at your revert there. I suggest confining your interaction to Baltimore. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered perfectly acceptable to make corrections to pages from following links on a talk page, so long as it is an obvious error. This is an obvious error and I did provide sources as to why. The mistake here, which is reverting changes based on out of date sources, is the same type of mistake, and does warrant discussion.

I have a broader interest in transportation, which is why I wanted to make the correction. It is inconsistent with existing convention to remove a valid edit until a source is added - otherwise the ^{[citation needed]} template would not be so prevalent. I will grant you that I should have added that in the interim before adding the actual source.

As I said, the options were to a) notice an obvious error and leave it uncorrected, b) revert the error without explaining, or c) explain what I was doing. The last option is clearly the most honest way to approach this. --Middle river exports (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy; it is your responsibility to provide a verifiable source for the edits you make. Given that you a) have never edited an article remotely related to this until now, b) chose to believe a completely unsourced claim by a disruptive editor, c) reverted to an unsourced revision with serious style issues, and d) re-added the claim with a source that does not verify the claim (or mention the exit or town whatsoever), it is very difficult to believe that you are acting in good faith here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A) is not true, several of my recent wiki edits have been focused on highway classification, although moreso towards the Wikidata and Commons side of things as they pertain to MUTCD codes b) I gave a perfectly clear explanation as to why the claim is credible and provided a source, and c) the link includes even maps of the town and exit. I am trying to be charitable here, but the lack of reading comprehension is seriously not helping your case. Perhaps you could not find it because you were not aware of the dual naming of the highway (it has a state route number as well), which is why I suggested using the county name filter. --Middle river exports (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided does not verify the claim that the ramp has been closed. Where on that website does it actually say that the ramp has been closed? The map only shows the project bounds, which end west of the Exit 291 ramps, and does not say anything about any ramp closure. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I provided an additional secondary source regarding the general scope of the project; possibly confusingly the map page is broken up into tabs - the "funding" tab shows that this is an ongoing project for which successive rounds of legislation have been passed to update; the secondary source corroborates this in stating that the project's first phase initiated in 2018.

I was careful with my wording here. It is plausible that the ramp itself was closed explicitly, but more importantly it is contextually impossible for a project like this to allow unrestricted eastbound travel to that point during periods of ongoing work. This is why I simply stated that access is inhibited by the ongoing project, not necessarily prevented at all times or closing that exit at all times without a source for that specific information. This was how edits/writing related to the Edmondson Avenue Bridge project in Baltimore had to be handled, as the scale of the project meant that it would have had to cause disruptions and restrictions over a several-year time span, but that access was intermittent and hard to verify the specifics of due to it actively changing more quickly than sources were likely to document. The detail that it was undergoing repair had to suffice until its eventual completion in March 2022.

There are AM radio stations run by highway administrations for day to day statuses, I think keeping the scope of the projects mention just to the fact that I-40 is ongoing development directly east to Cuervo is acceptable and pertinent. --Middle river exports (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I've added a reference to the information. The only issue here is that inaccurate information is being added to the wiki on purpose under the pretense of it being more reliable just because the source was easier to find. The problem with that is every historical piece of information that has been rendered inaccurate is bound to have a source that can be cited; when a volcano erupts we at least note that it erupted and add information as it becomes available, we don't put that it isn't erupting a week later because it wasn't erupting a year ago. The two options here were to correct the article without documenting the reason for correction and risk it getting reverted again, or document the change. There's no personal vendetta here. --Middle river exports (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesnt update their images that often. That ramp is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiserYT (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Church Street station (MBTA)

On 15 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Church Street station (MBTA), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the name of Church Street station has been changed twice since 2019? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Church Street station (MBTA). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Church Street station (MBTA)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with dab page cleanup

I typed "PEM", expecting to reach a dab page so I could go to the Peabody Essex Museum article. Instead, I arrived at what is now Parallel Economic Model, a poorly-written newbie creation which I now see was dumped onto a previously-existing dabpage. I tried to clean up the mess, but I fear that I did it incorrectly, since I did not realize that there was an existing dab page buried at the bottom of the newbie article, until after I had done the renames. Rather than thrash around more, I figure it's time to call for more-experienced help.

Can you clean up this minor mess, or refer me to whoever it is that can clean it up? I'm concerned that the editing history isn't in the right place, and that there is a superfluous redirect in the path from pem. If the process is simple, please explain it to me, so I can clean up similar messes in the future. Thank you! Reify-tech (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Bkonrad got to it before my morning alarm; they may be able to provide additional advice, as this isn't a situation I've dealt with much. I will note two things. One, the parenthetical (disambiguation) should always be lower case. Two, you generally don't have to worry about double redirects unless they're likely to be heavily used, as a bot will fix it to the correct target within 24 hours. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that moving articles to the correct name without redirects seems to be key to not messing up the edit histories further. The capitalized "(Disambiguation)" came from a pre-existing page I was trying to fix up, but I was afraid of messing things up more. One lesson taken is that when an article looks weird or misplaced, to scroll all the way through it looking for remnants of what was there before, and also to check the recent edit history to see if a clueless newbie has inadvertently created a problem. What I should have done is reverted the new stuff, and spun off a copy of that stuff as a newly-created stub article. I didn't realize that there was already an extensive dab page, so I created a new one, then discovered my oversight. It's good to know that double redirects will get resolved automatically. Thanks for your continuing readiness to help! Reify-tech (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Norwood Central station

The article Norwood Central station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Norwood Central station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Trainsandotherthings -- Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Green Line Extension

On 21 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Green Line Extension, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Green Line Extension, which partially opens today, was first proposed a century ago? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Green Line Extension. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Green Line Extension), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 13,488 views (1,124.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022 – nice work!

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Union Square MBTA Question

Hello and thank you for your thorough work on the wikipedia entry for the Union Square green line station! I'm wondering if you can answer a burning question I've had. I feel like I heard somewhere that the station was built on pre-existing rails. Looking through the wiki entry I didn't spot an answer, but it seems feasible given the long history of the station. Do you happen to know more details about how much of the station/tracks/infrastructure was already there, and how old it is? I don't have a wikipedia account, so I will try to remember to check back here but you could also email me at jkind14@gmail.com. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.44.169.164 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@130.44.169.164: Thank you for your kind words! The Union Square Branch was built on the existing (1835-opened) Fitchburg Line right of way; however, all Green Line tracks and station structures are brand new. (The Medford Street bridge was also substantially modified during early works to add extra tracks.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you for your quick response! 130.44.169.164 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully

You are wasting time either willingly lying or just ignoring the sources I have sent you. If you don't have the patience to actually read the sources or Wikipedia guidelines, please refrain from insisting your opinion constitutes "consensus" even when presented with information to the contrary. --Middle river exports (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle river exports: I'm sorry that you're frustrated. I have no strong opinion about what name is correct, but I want to make sure that we get it correct. I have posted a neutral notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Baltimore Light Rail station naming and sources to get wider opinions about the station naming. You may also wish to post at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of sources. Please note that undiscussed moves are explicitly open to reversion by a single editor per WP:RMUM: If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move. Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for getting frustrated. The official Light Rail website, which did say University of Baltimore / Mt. Royal about a month ago, now just says "Mount Royal" for this station: http://www.mtanexttrain.net/LATA.MTA.PublicSite/Home/TrainLocationSchematicMap

I suspect they changed the name when they updated the map for the current construction closure of the southern leg of the line. They seem to have walked back on pretending they have renamed some of their stations, which is good because the alternative was needlessly confusing. (I say pretended because nobody ever used the needlessly confusing names which appeared in some press releases and documents briefly. The biggest reason being that they duplicated stop names - Timonium Business Park and Timonium Fairgrounds have both been referred to as just "Timonium" in various recent documents, which as you can imagine, caused problems.)

In light of the update and in the interest of keeping the name recognizable, I have renamed the article Mount Royal station (Light RailLink), without the 'Mt.' abbreviation as it is not abbreviated in all sources and the full name of its name sake street and older station have 'Mount' in it. I am fairly confident the MTA will continue to be inconsistent in station names in future documents, but Mount Royal is at least the common factor and most recognizable part of the name for this station. The version of the name with MICA in it is definitely the least used name, even from 2017 onwards, so there is no sense in keeping it as that.

I also moved Mount Royal Station (Baltimore and Ohio Railroad), and made Mount Royal Station go to the disambiguation page, because I do not think there is any basis for considering the historical station in Baltimore more significant than the currently in use one, or the Montreal one. (The light rail station and historic station are also across the street from each other - it is likely some people might even expect them to be on the same page because they are in the same location, so the disambiguation is better as the main page.) --Middle river exports (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And left most of the links pointing at the disambiguation page. That's a really disruptive change. You need to stop moving things around and start getting consensus for these changes. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC seems important here. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is an uncontroversial edit I have justified with sources. It is highly likely many of the existing links pointed to the wrong page before. If you have any serious reason to believe the primary topic is the historical Mount Royal station, feel free to elaborate. ---Middle river exports (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Even if you believe a move is wholly uncontroversial (hint: if someone objects, it is no longer uncontroversial), you need to make sure you do not break a ton of links in the process. Messed up moves are quite a pain to clean up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM#CM says that The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies: there has been any past debate about the best title for the page; [or] someone could reasonably disagree with the move. Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. It doesn't matter how "uncontroversial" you think these moves should be - given that I have objected, you are required to file a move request. Why do you believe you are exempt from this policy? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do you believe you are exempt from this policy?" Because your unsourced move was borderline vandalism. Why do you focus on protecting incorrect information in favor of up to date sources? I have provided as much help to you as necessary in the information at the bottom of the page. Need I remind you that your reversions of the Timonium station were made after I contested your moves, and were undiscussed. You are free to provide more basis for your edits any time, and I assumed good faith when you stated that you simply wanted to arrive at the correct outcome. If you are unhappy with the correct outcome, I cannot help you. --Middle river exports (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You moved the article first; my revert of that move was explicitly in compliance with WP:RMUM: If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move. Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. I cannot emphasize this enough: no matter how much you disagree with my reverts of your move, policy makes it absolutely that that the person who wants to move an article has to get consensus for the move. That is you - you moved the article from a title that it had been at for years. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"it had been there for years" on its own does not constitute consensus. Please see WP:BOLD and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Mount Royal as referring to the Canadian location already constitutes consensus. Further, "it has been there for years" again ignores the fact that existing policy is to bring articles up to date as time passes; as I said in the volcano example, we don't edit volcanoes to say they didn't erupt after the fact on the basis of older sources. The current use of the building, and the lack of a primary topic, both have such an abundance of clear support that there is very little left to discuss. Leaving this as-is for now because this is an uncontroversial move. Middle river exports (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I did see you moved the Timonium stations too. Please, please do not do that!! You are going to make people get lost on their way to work. I understand if you don't use the system it may seem uncontroversial but you are putting inaccurate information on the wiki. --Middle river exports (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Including all Amtrak station stops

Hey, I'm struggling with the inclusion of all Amtrak station stops ever, including eliminated stops, on station tables. I get it from an argument of completeness, but in the case of the Acela or Pacific Surfliner, so few trains served these stations they don’t seem worthy of the clutter they add on these already long pages. Maybe we pull them from the chart, but include them in the history section? Or in prose above or below the tables? RickyCourtney (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's definitely tricky. For the Acela, New London definitely should be in the table and RDT; while it was limited service, it was consistent for two decades. I'd be okay with New Rochelle being omitted from the RDT and table, as long as it's mentioned somewhere in the prose, because it was a single train for a short duration. The Pacific Surfliner is more difficult in that there have been a number of former stops, many of which were only served for a short time or by a few trains, but others were longer lasting - but they were all considered regular stops rather than just Metrolink cross-honoring. I would err on the side of inclusion, at least in the table - they only take up one row, after all - but I'm flexible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, check out my changes at Pacific Surfliner#Stations and see what you think. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I've added distances to the table. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turners Falls branches

I've created two RDTs:

In addition to Karr I used massgis for reference. Thoughts? (Aside: incredibly awkward that the B&M buys the New Haven branch in 1947). Mackensen (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled as to how B&M trains reached the NH branch post-1936. Was there a connection from the East Deerfield Loop. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears there was a zig-zag of sorts from the East Deerfield loop. Starting to workshop one article: User:Mackensen/Turners Falls branch (New Haven). Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it should be marked as one of the connectors on my map. Looks good otherwise. I'd consider saying "Fitchburg Route" since "Patriot Corridor" wasn't coined until decades after the branches were abandoned. Also, for the New Haven RDT, both the Fitchburg Route/Patriot Corridor and the Connecticut River Line continue through Greenfield. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Fairs point and refactored. Main Line (Fitchburg Railroad) may well deserve its own article. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Turners Falls branch (New Haven) one down, one to go. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, I've started working on User:Mackensen/Template:Patriot Corridor. I'm not a fan of commingling current railway lines with prior railroads and did a bunch of splits with Swiss railroads. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be more supportive of combined articles if they're more or less coextensive. Here I'm fine with it being separate from Fitchburg Railroad / Fitchburg Route because they're not coextensive. However, I'm not sure if Patriot Corridor (currently a redirect) and Pan Am Southern really need separate articles; the temporal extents are similar, and PAS is basically the Patriot Corridor plus a bit of trackage rights. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, coextensive physically but not temporally. The Fitchburg hasn't been an operating entity since 1900 or so, and hasn't existed on paper since 1919(?). Writing about physical infrastructure on the article of a company that's been dead a century strikes me as strange. Mackensen (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not even physically - besides the east-of-Ayer segment, PAS/Patriot Corridor also doesn't include the original Fitchburg mainline between Troy and Johnsonville, nor any of the odd second mainline between Johnsonville and the Massachusetts border. (BTW, Karr confirms that "Patriot Corridor" was defined with the PAS agreement, so I really don't think Patriot Corridor needs an article separate from PAS.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an argument that the Patriot Corridor and PAS are not coextensive; PAS operates all of PAR's lines in Connecticut, for instance (see here). But even so, what is there to say about the Patriot Corridor that couldn't just be said within Pan Am Southern? (which I really need to rewrite at some point) The issue I find with splitting between lines and railroad companies is that it's often difficult to find sources for the lines themselves, and to avoid repetition between an article on physical infrastructure and an article on the railroad that built/operated it. Even worse are the articles on individual subdivisions; often they're permastubs because there's just nearly no sources at all (perfect example which I redirected). This extends to companies which built but never operated lines as well; I've contained six such companies within Hartford and New Haven Railroad, and I think that organization system works well. But there are exceptions, such as the Stony Brook Railroad, though that is more about the line than the company.

Specifically relating to the Turner's Falls Branch, I rewrote and greatly expanded the New Haven and Northampton Railroad article last year. I wrote just some basic details about the Turner's Falls Branch there, namely the opening date along with suspensions and abandonments of service. The last mention is of B&M purchasing and reopening (I'm not 100% clear on if the entire branch was abandoned by the New Haven in 1943, I believe it was and B&M reactivated the part it bought in 1947). We run into the "not many sources" issue here; we have Karr's book, a Sanborn Fire map, and a report that mentions part of the route being replaced by a trail. There are probably at least a few more sources out there, but we've just barely got enough right now to justify a standalone article. In many cases I find it's not worthwhile. For instance, a separate article for the Armory Branch (originally the Connecticut Central Railroad (1871)) would be quite pointless in my view, as there's nothing really to be said that isn't in the Connecticut Central article already. If it were up to me, almost all our articles on subdivisions would be redirected. Some rail line articles can make sense, for instance the New Haven–Springfield Line has enough sources specific to it that there's more than enough to justify having a separate article from the Hartford and New Haven Railroad. But I think this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, rather than assuming all branches of any significance inherently merit their own pages (WP:NOPAGE). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore LightRailLink reference image

Hello, I linked above, but just to be clear since it looks like you changed multiple stations in the light rail line to an incorrect name, please refer to this reference image going forward:

Baltimore Light Rail real time info display screenshot, 2 May 2022

This is a screenshot from today, 2 May 2022, of the official light rail website http://mtanexttrain.net , on the schematic map tracker (you have to click the expand button to see the whole thing).

They have finally updated the station names to be consistent with the on-the-ground, actively used names. If you want to make changes to article titles, only make changes to match these station names (unabbreviated). Please do not make changes based one one-off press releases and PDFs from 2017. --Middle river exports (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have seen you using Google Maps to justify changing information back to something out of date elsewhere on this talk page. For future reference, you can use Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/) to find more imagery and filter by date, which is all Creative Commons licensed so you can use here as well. If you want to verify the current situation on the ground, you need to account for the timing. Wikipedia's guidelines are clear that articles should reflect what is currently accurate using the best available information, not to favor out-of-date information just because it is more thoroughly documented. --Middle river exports (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion you should know about

Please note that I decided to bring the question of the succession boxes for the Ashmont branch of the MBTA red line to the broader public at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Train route succession should always run in the same direction. Animal lover 666 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parkchester/Van Nest station (Metro-North)

Hi, I'm not greatly versed in the dos and don'ts of Wikipedia. So, I don't know if this is the best way to question the following statement "The 1908-built station building, designed by Cass Gilbert, is no longer extant" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkchester/Van_Nest_station_(Metro-North)&oldid=1059012535). The source for the statement (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/realestate/29scapes.html) doesn't seem to support the statement. Not directly at least.

Another Times article says the station was opened in the late 1800s (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/realestate/24living.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DM Warneke (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DM Warneke: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for noticing that error - that was my fault for misreading the source. It turns out, upon further research, that Gilbert designed new buildings for Van Nest and the other existing stations on the line in 1908, but not all of them were built.

When you find a claim like that that's not supported by the source, there are a couple things you can do. One is to simply remove it, especially if you can replace it with correct cited information. An edit summary like "remove claim not supported by the source" will let other editors know what you're doing. Alternatively, you could add {{Failed verification}} next to the citation, and/or start a thread on the talk page. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Glad I reached out regarding that statement. Appreciate the new info. DM Warneke (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you note.

Hi. I "thanked" you for an edit just now because I was questioning my sanity because my hindbrain was kicking me and going Dean Clough Dean Clough Dean Clough and many other buildings in Yorkshire and Lancashire woollens and worsteds areas, plus the cotton belt. I'm sure you will see what I mean. regards, -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBTA "hub stations"

Good morning Pi. I was going to post this on the MBTA talk page but I figured I'd ask you directly since you're pretty active with MBTA articles. Anyway, I noticed our articles on Park Street, Downtown Crossing, State and Government Center stations all refer to them as hub stations, but as far as I can tell Wikipedia is the only site to do so. I've heard them referred to as transfer stations before, but that would also include a handful of others. -- Vaulter 13:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaulter: Thanks for reaching out. It looks like that statement was added in 2016 by The PIPE, who's unfortunately inactive; also pinging Reify-tech who's been active in copyediting MBTA articles. I do think there's a potential value in distinguishing these four stations from the other major transfer stations – I vaguely recall discussion of it by the designer of the current subway map – but certainly we shouldn't be using language that can't be backed up by sources. I'm not terribly attached to the wording, so feel free to modify it if you have a better wording in mind. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. It actually occurred to me after I posted that they may be called hub stations because that's where trains run outbound from/inbound to (at least that's the case with Park Street and the Red Line; I'm not as familiar with the other lines). -- Vaulter 13:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the term used for a long time (mostly by transit people), and it indeed refers to the 4 central subway transfer stations where "inbound" trains become "outbound". It is useful to distinguish these stations from other transfer stations, such as North Station or Ashmont. People mostly learn it from context. I don't know whether anybody ever bothered to write up a formal definition of the word, but it might appear in a glossary of "T" terms and jargon somewhere. It is a useful word to have, and banning it would require some awkward rewording. Reify-tech (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it should be OK to keep referring to those stations as such. But we should probably mention what that term means somewhere. -- Vaulter 17:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are discussed briefly at MBTA subway#Coverage, which seems sufficient to me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on Embarcadero station

Thanks for your edits to Embarcadero station.

I wonder what this consensus is about related to platform layouts. I know NYC subway has a lot of platform layouts, and the same can be said about some BART stations. What are the specific guidelines about those? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 04:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesome Aasim: Thanks for reaching out. The most recent RFC is here; while there were a variety of opinions, I think the general consensus is clear. The diagrams have significant downsides (they're an accessibility nightmare, and they take up a lot of room), so my rule of thumb is that the layout diagrams are only worthwhile if they provide additional clarity for the prose or clarify unusual service patterns. Thus, it's useful to have the layout on MacArthur station (BART) to clarify the service patterns described in the prose. A layout diagram doesn't really add anything to Embarcadero, where there's only a single platform on each level, but due to the numerous services it takes up a whole screen of space.

The NYC stations have an active group of editors; Epicgenius might be able to answer any questions you have about layouts for those. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that looks like a great compromise. Thanks :) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 06:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]