This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would recommend left-aligning these images. Having them with the text (rather than pushed below the infobox) is more important than any potential sandwiching.
Any information on when the double tracking was completed?
The last section between Providence and Worcester was completed in 1885, though the work did begin shortly after the accident. I can't say when the section in question was double-tracked, though we would logically assume it would be one of the first locations to be addressed.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm doubtful of the claim that the P&W had the first electronic signal system in the US. The
Fitchburg Cutoff had track circuits installed in 1876, and
several other lines shortly thereafter. Perhaps this was the first of a specific signal system type - are there any further details in the source?
I'm in the middle of a move at the moment (going back to Connecticut) and I don't have the book in question with me right now. For the time being I'm just going to remove the "first" claim from the article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
References
Source 6 is weirdly formatted, and the publisher shouldn't just be the website url.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 was one of the earliest train wrecks ever photographed? Source: Reed, Robert (1968). Train Wrecks: A Pictorial History of Accidents on the Main Line. Seattle: Superior Pub. Co. pp. 20–21. Also verified by Heppner, Frank H. (2012). Railroads of Rhode Island: shaping the Ocean State's railways. Charleston, South Carolina: History Press. p. 78
Article was promoted to GA status on time and I did not find any close paraphrasing. QPQ has been done. Since I can't access either source for the hook I'd like to at least see a quote or excerpt that discusses the hook. As for the hook itself, while it meets
WP:DYKINT, the footnote supporting it comes at the end of the paragraph where the sentence is rather than the end of the sentence itself. In addition, the hook and the article do not match: the hook says "one of the earliest" but the article outright says "believed to be the first." I understand this is because of the recent issues with "first" hooks, but as it stands, the article cannot run unless that is resolved first.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have access to Train Wrecks right now as I'm in the middle of a move. Heppner says "This was the first train wreck ever to be photographed and printed in a newspaper". I have added an inline cite at the end of the sentence. This is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - if we try and run the hook as stated in the sources and article, it will almost certainly be challenged.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My usual litmus test for "first" hooks is whether there's a finite set of things, making it possible to definitively order them and see which was first. For example, we can be pretty sure
George Washington was indeed the first president of the United States; even the most skeptical of us should be willing to accept that there wasn't one before him that we just somehow haven't found yet in a google search. In this case, photography had only existed for about 20 years when this crash happened. The window of when an earlier photo might have been taken is thus limited, so at least this seems likely to be true. On general principles, however, I think we should say "believed to be" or something like that. FWIW, I found mention of this in the
George Eastman House 2008 Annual Report which says "[Train wreck on the Providence Worcester Railroad near to Pawtucket], August 12, 1853. Attributed to L. Wright. Daguerreotype. so there may be some uncertainty about the photographer's identity.
RoySmith(talk)15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I generally interpret the phrase "attributed to" to indicate a degree of uncertainty. Thus
Read my lips: no new taxes says, "Read my lips: no new taxes" is a phrase spoken by American presidential candidate George H. W. Bush. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that he said it. Millions of people watched him say it live on TV and we've got it on videotape to go back and verify. But
Gospel of Matthew says The gospel is traditionally attributed to the Apostle Matthew because we're not 100% sure. I think the same thing is going on here; the Eastman folks believe Wright took the image, but they apparently have enough uncertainty about it that they felt the needs to hedge in their statement.
RoySmith(talk)19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand now. So what we know without a doubt is this collision happened and it was photographed. Photography was very much an emerging technology at this point so I think this is almost certainly one of the first train collisions ever photographed, if not the first. Railroads as we know them only really emerged around 1830 with the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway and the Daguerreotype was invented in 1839. It's difficult to definitively prove this was the first photo, but it was almost certainly one of the earliest. The question is how do we word this in the article and in the hook. An ALT1 about the emergence of a very early form of a coordinated time/time zone in the aftermath of this wreck is also possible, as that is somewhat easier to verify.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would recommend left-aligning these images. Having them with the text (rather than pushed below the infobox) is more important than any potential sandwiching.
Any information on when the double tracking was completed?
The last section between Providence and Worcester was completed in 1885, though the work did begin shortly after the accident. I can't say when the section in question was double-tracked, though we would logically assume it would be one of the first locations to be addressed.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm doubtful of the claim that the P&W had the first electronic signal system in the US. The
Fitchburg Cutoff had track circuits installed in 1876, and
several other lines shortly thereafter. Perhaps this was the first of a specific signal system type - are there any further details in the source?
I'm in the middle of a move at the moment (going back to Connecticut) and I don't have the book in question with me right now. For the time being I'm just going to remove the "first" claim from the article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
References
Source 6 is weirdly formatted, and the publisher shouldn't just be the website url.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 was one of the earliest train wrecks ever photographed? Source: Reed, Robert (1968). Train Wrecks: A Pictorial History of Accidents on the Main Line. Seattle: Superior Pub. Co. pp. 20–21. Also verified by Heppner, Frank H. (2012). Railroads of Rhode Island: shaping the Ocean State's railways. Charleston, South Carolina: History Press. p. 78
Article was promoted to GA status on time and I did not find any close paraphrasing. QPQ has been done. Since I can't access either source for the hook I'd like to at least see a quote or excerpt that discusses the hook. As for the hook itself, while it meets
WP:DYKINT, the footnote supporting it comes at the end of the paragraph where the sentence is rather than the end of the sentence itself. In addition, the hook and the article do not match: the hook says "one of the earliest" but the article outright says "believed to be the first." I understand this is because of the recent issues with "first" hooks, but as it stands, the article cannot run unless that is resolved first.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have access to Train Wrecks right now as I'm in the middle of a move. Heppner says "This was the first train wreck ever to be photographed and printed in a newspaper". I have added an inline cite at the end of the sentence. This is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - if we try and run the hook as stated in the sources and article, it will almost certainly be challenged.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My usual litmus test for "first" hooks is whether there's a finite set of things, making it possible to definitively order them and see which was first. For example, we can be pretty sure
George Washington was indeed the first president of the United States; even the most skeptical of us should be willing to accept that there wasn't one before him that we just somehow haven't found yet in a google search. In this case, photography had only existed for about 20 years when this crash happened. The window of when an earlier photo might have been taken is thus limited, so at least this seems likely to be true. On general principles, however, I think we should say "believed to be" or something like that. FWIW, I found mention of this in the
George Eastman House 2008 Annual Report which says "[Train wreck on the Providence Worcester Railroad near to Pawtucket], August 12, 1853. Attributed to L. Wright. Daguerreotype. so there may be some uncertainty about the photographer's identity.
RoySmith(talk)15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I generally interpret the phrase "attributed to" to indicate a degree of uncertainty. Thus
Read my lips: no new taxes says, "Read my lips: no new taxes" is a phrase spoken by American presidential candidate George H. W. Bush. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that he said it. Millions of people watched him say it live on TV and we've got it on videotape to go back and verify. But
Gospel of Matthew says The gospel is traditionally attributed to the Apostle Matthew because we're not 100% sure. I think the same thing is going on here; the Eastman folks believe Wright took the image, but they apparently have enough uncertainty about it that they felt the needs to hedge in their statement.
RoySmith(talk)19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand now. So what we know without a doubt is this collision happened and it was photographed. Photography was very much an emerging technology at this point so I think this is almost certainly one of the first train collisions ever photographed, if not the first. Railroads as we know them only really emerged around 1830 with the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway and the Daguerreotype was invented in 1839. It's difficult to definitively prove this was the first photo, but it was almost certainly one of the earliest. The question is how do we word this in the article and in the hook. An ALT1 about the emergence of a very early form of a coordinated time/time zone in the aftermath of this wreck is also possible, as that is somewhat easier to verify.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply