This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 24, 2013. |
I've add a redlink in the "see also" section to an article-to-be about the B&O shops in Martinsburg, WV. While I don't have the resources to write this article, I believe it is a deserving topic due to the shops' status as a National Historic Landmark. Just a suggestion in case anybody wants to take it on. - Ipoellet 05:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This was certainly a notable B&O train that ran between Wash.-NY 1895-1958, so I've added it to the Named Trains list and will start an article on it soon.
On the other hand, is the "President Express" valid? I don't see any mention of it in any book about the B&O or in the Official Guide, so I'll go ahead and delete it. JGHowes talk - 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This sounds extremely bias to me, and it's the only section I read. I assume that the entirety of the article is bias because of this. 65.199.113.40 ( talk) 09:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Two references (Dilts and Harwood) state that the B&O had no intention of building the main line directly to Frederick, preferring to take advantage of a valley grade to the south. I will revise this section accordingly, unless a reference can be provided for the current assertion that "the city of Frederick would not pay the B&O the cost of routing the railroad through the rougher terrain into downtown Frederick." Caseyjonz ( talk) 06:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking over this article, and it strikes me as confusingly laid out. I think it would make much more sense if it were organized chronologically, like the page for the Pennsy. I think that's much more readable, and I'd like to get the B&O to that state. Would anyone object to me reorganizing things, not adding or deleting any content? RMMCP ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by RMMCP ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Much of the current history section was lifted word-for-word from Drury, George H. (1994). The Historical Guide to North American Railroads: Histories, Figures, and Features of more than 160 Railroads Abandoned or Merged since 1930. Waukesha, Wisconsin: Kalmbach Publishing. pp. 35–40. ISBN 0-89024-072-8 by Oanabay04 ( talk · contribs). This occurred in 2013; see especially [1]. This article is one of many affected articles (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Major_copyright_problem for discussion) but given the relative size of this article and the number of intervening edits there may not be a quick fix. Special:Diff/540856696 is the last clean version; it might be possible to simply build on that. Mackensen (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: The Historical Guide to North American Railroads: Histories, Figures, and Features of more than 160 Railroads Abandoned or Merged since 1930 by George H. Drury. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous paragraphs throughout the article that have no citations whatsoever. Specifically, in the following sections:
Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 03:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
What is missing from this article is any discussion of why the B&O had two or more depots in Baltimore and their role in providing passenger transportation to many locations, not only just in Maryland. A lot is missing, in other words. 98.140.79.183 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
" Carrollton Viaduct ... the world's second-oldest railroad bridge still carrying trains". Does being an actual (multi-arch) viaduct disqualify the Bassaleg Viaduct (1826)? -- Verbarson talk edits 19:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding my recent edit to the lede section, reverted by Deisenbe: The following sentence, which is the 2nd one in the article, is problematic:
The problem, in a word, is that it is virtually unreadable. If it appeared somewhere deep in the article, it would not be quite so worrisome. But in its prominent position at the very beginning of the article, it needs to be revised. It is excessively long and stuffed with too much detail of relatively secondary importance; it shows every sign of having been written by committee, a vulnerability faced by all articles on the site, crowd-sourced as it is. Take, for example, the text, "trade with trans-Appalachian settlers with the Albany-Schenectady Turnpike..." After reading that part of the sentence multiple times, I finally understood the two uses of "with", which appear so close to one another. The B&O wants to compete for trade with the settlers, and it wants to compete against all those listed alternate transportation enterprises. Next problem: the use of multiple parenthetical phrases (three, to be exact) in that single sentence is distracting and unnecessary. If so much information is important, it should be incorporated directly into the text, without parenthetical crutches. However, all those tangential bits of information do not need to be explained upfront in the lede, and certainly not in the 2nd sentence, where they serve only to derail the reader, who is forced to slog through them to reach the more significant information. The entire concept can be made far more readable by saying:
The other competitors can be mentioned in an appropriate location in the body of the article; they are not essential to the lede. Next, consider the phrase "trans-Appalachian settlers". It is needlessly confusing and (for lack of a better term) technocratic. Let's clearly describe what the settlers are doing: they are crossing the mountains.
Some of my edits were to maintain continuity in the lede after relocation and changes to the 2nd sentence. In the last paragraph I changed "immortality" to "fame" as a more appropriate description, and I modified the last sentence to be a little more formal. In this Talk post, I am offering a simple way to fix the second sentence by maintaining its location and dividing it into two sentences while removing some of its unneeded, distracting and minor detail. I look forward to an early reply. DonFB ( talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Something that belongs here somewhere is that the railroad wanted to connect to the Ohio River and to the developing Mississippi River part of the country. And a main cargo item was slaves. Maryland and Virginia bred them, like they were breeding pigs, and sold the children to Mississippi (Natchez) and Louisiana. Well documented. And a key piece of cargo for the B&O. deisenbe ( talk) 11:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
At B&O Railroad Museum, there is a mix of "Baltimore and Ohio", "Baltimore & Ohio", and "B&O". The railroad itself is Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, whose lead sentence states "The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (reporting marks B&O, BO)..." and the museum's website calls itself "B&O Railroad Museum". How should we refer to individual trains or cars of this railroad? Right now we are not even consistent:
Baltimore & Ohio GP30 #6944
Baltimore and Ohio 0-4-0 "Grasshopper"
Baltimore & Ohio 4-6-0 #147 "Thatcher Perkins"
B&O Royal Blue Line
What format should we use in what context? DMacks ( talk) 20:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Will someone please correct the geography references? Specifically, Wheeling is in West Virginia and not in Virginia. There are other mistakes of this kind elsewhere on the page. 192.181.182.15 ( talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The entire lead is unreferenced in this article. It's fairly well-written, though borderline too long for a lead, but the first citation doesn't even pop up until midway through the history section. Lindsey40186 ( talk) 16:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 24, 2013. |
I've add a redlink in the "see also" section to an article-to-be about the B&O shops in Martinsburg, WV. While I don't have the resources to write this article, I believe it is a deserving topic due to the shops' status as a National Historic Landmark. Just a suggestion in case anybody wants to take it on. - Ipoellet 05:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This was certainly a notable B&O train that ran between Wash.-NY 1895-1958, so I've added it to the Named Trains list and will start an article on it soon.
On the other hand, is the "President Express" valid? I don't see any mention of it in any book about the B&O or in the Official Guide, so I'll go ahead and delete it. JGHowes talk - 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This sounds extremely bias to me, and it's the only section I read. I assume that the entirety of the article is bias because of this. 65.199.113.40 ( talk) 09:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Two references (Dilts and Harwood) state that the B&O had no intention of building the main line directly to Frederick, preferring to take advantage of a valley grade to the south. I will revise this section accordingly, unless a reference can be provided for the current assertion that "the city of Frederick would not pay the B&O the cost of routing the railroad through the rougher terrain into downtown Frederick." Caseyjonz ( talk) 06:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking over this article, and it strikes me as confusingly laid out. I think it would make much more sense if it were organized chronologically, like the page for the Pennsy. I think that's much more readable, and I'd like to get the B&O to that state. Would anyone object to me reorganizing things, not adding or deleting any content? RMMCP ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by RMMCP ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Much of the current history section was lifted word-for-word from Drury, George H. (1994). The Historical Guide to North American Railroads: Histories, Figures, and Features of more than 160 Railroads Abandoned or Merged since 1930. Waukesha, Wisconsin: Kalmbach Publishing. pp. 35–40. ISBN 0-89024-072-8 by Oanabay04 ( talk · contribs). This occurred in 2013; see especially [1]. This article is one of many affected articles (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Major_copyright_problem for discussion) but given the relative size of this article and the number of intervening edits there may not be a quick fix. Special:Diff/540856696 is the last clean version; it might be possible to simply build on that. Mackensen (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: The Historical Guide to North American Railroads: Histories, Figures, and Features of more than 160 Railroads Abandoned or Merged since 1930 by George H. Drury. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous paragraphs throughout the article that have no citations whatsoever. Specifically, in the following sections:
Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 03:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
What is missing from this article is any discussion of why the B&O had two or more depots in Baltimore and their role in providing passenger transportation to many locations, not only just in Maryland. A lot is missing, in other words. 98.140.79.183 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
" Carrollton Viaduct ... the world's second-oldest railroad bridge still carrying trains". Does being an actual (multi-arch) viaduct disqualify the Bassaleg Viaduct (1826)? -- Verbarson talk edits 19:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding my recent edit to the lede section, reverted by Deisenbe: The following sentence, which is the 2nd one in the article, is problematic:
The problem, in a word, is that it is virtually unreadable. If it appeared somewhere deep in the article, it would not be quite so worrisome. But in its prominent position at the very beginning of the article, it needs to be revised. It is excessively long and stuffed with too much detail of relatively secondary importance; it shows every sign of having been written by committee, a vulnerability faced by all articles on the site, crowd-sourced as it is. Take, for example, the text, "trade with trans-Appalachian settlers with the Albany-Schenectady Turnpike..." After reading that part of the sentence multiple times, I finally understood the two uses of "with", which appear so close to one another. The B&O wants to compete for trade with the settlers, and it wants to compete against all those listed alternate transportation enterprises. Next problem: the use of multiple parenthetical phrases (three, to be exact) in that single sentence is distracting and unnecessary. If so much information is important, it should be incorporated directly into the text, without parenthetical crutches. However, all those tangential bits of information do not need to be explained upfront in the lede, and certainly not in the 2nd sentence, where they serve only to derail the reader, who is forced to slog through them to reach the more significant information. The entire concept can be made far more readable by saying:
The other competitors can be mentioned in an appropriate location in the body of the article; they are not essential to the lede. Next, consider the phrase "trans-Appalachian settlers". It is needlessly confusing and (for lack of a better term) technocratic. Let's clearly describe what the settlers are doing: they are crossing the mountains.
Some of my edits were to maintain continuity in the lede after relocation and changes to the 2nd sentence. In the last paragraph I changed "immortality" to "fame" as a more appropriate description, and I modified the last sentence to be a little more formal. In this Talk post, I am offering a simple way to fix the second sentence by maintaining its location and dividing it into two sentences while removing some of its unneeded, distracting and minor detail. I look forward to an early reply. DonFB ( talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Something that belongs here somewhere is that the railroad wanted to connect to the Ohio River and to the developing Mississippi River part of the country. And a main cargo item was slaves. Maryland and Virginia bred them, like they were breeding pigs, and sold the children to Mississippi (Natchez) and Louisiana. Well documented. And a key piece of cargo for the B&O. deisenbe ( talk) 11:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
At B&O Railroad Museum, there is a mix of "Baltimore and Ohio", "Baltimore & Ohio", and "B&O". The railroad itself is Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, whose lead sentence states "The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (reporting marks B&O, BO)..." and the museum's website calls itself "B&O Railroad Museum". How should we refer to individual trains or cars of this railroad? Right now we are not even consistent:
Baltimore & Ohio GP30 #6944
Baltimore and Ohio 0-4-0 "Grasshopper"
Baltimore & Ohio 4-6-0 #147 "Thatcher Perkins"
B&O Royal Blue Line
What format should we use in what context? DMacks ( talk) 20:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Will someone please correct the geography references? Specifically, Wheeling is in West Virginia and not in Virginia. There are other mistakes of this kind elsewhere on the page. 192.181.182.15 ( talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The entire lead is unreferenced in this article. It's fairly well-written, though borderline too long for a lead, but the first citation doesn't even pop up until midway through the history section. Lindsey40186 ( talk) 16:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)