Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

The article Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad for comments about the article, and Talk:Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 ( talk) 22:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Why was the article Lifford Halt railway station deleted and redirected? All the other stations on the same line don't redirect. Now the link to the Lifford station on the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway page redirects to the same page. JoeMcCaff ( talk) 01:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ JoeMcCaff: I came across the article while doing new page patrol. I redirected the article because it does not appear to meet the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only source was a trivial mention (a single line of data) in a self-published document (which is not considered a reliable source). I would suggest redirecting all of the station articles to the line article unless you can find sufficient independent, reliable coverage. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Right. Well there's a number of books I own which have lists of the stations so I could add those. Just leave the others and I'll get on it in the morning. JoeMcCaff ( talk) 02:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Lough Swilly: How much detail does that book (and any others you have access to) provide about the station? If there's little or nothing more than opening/closing dates, that's far from the significant coverage required by the notability guideline. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Admittedly they do not have a lot of information specifically about them, other than facts about elevation or if they had a goods platform or not. These articles go back to 2012, I only added Lifford halt for consistency and it served the town of Lifford which is a particularly important town in County Donegal. If you think most of those stations do not meet the notability guidelines, would it be better to just add the infobox, few sentences about the station, and links to the preceding/following station on their respective town/townland page? Lough Swilly ( talk) 10:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Lough Swilly: You could do that, but I don't think it's the best option. Since none of the intermediate stations seem to have much information available other than open/close dates, it's probably best to have them all redirect to the article on the railway. You can add a table there similar to that at Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad#Station listing, with the station name, town name, mileage, and perhaps coordinates. The articles on the towns can just have a cited sentence saying XYZ station on the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway was open from 1 January 1909 to 1 January 1960. I would also suggest merging Letterkenny railway station (County Donegal Railways) into Letterkenny bus station since it's the same building. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 02:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, I just saw that you reverted my Watuppa Branch edits. I understand why you did so; I just thought I'd say that I hadn't finished the edits/citations, which is partly why it looked so awkward. I should have finished it then. I am planning to revert your edit, so I can complete from where I started, if that is okay with you. Sorry about that and about the confusion. Thanks!! EPBeatles ( talk) 00:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ EPBeatles: Thanks for the note. In the future, there are several ways to avoid this issue while working on an article:

• If your edits will take more than a few days to complete, use a sandbox - either a user sandbox like User:EPBeatles/sandbox or a talk page sandbox like Talk:Watuppa Branch/sandbox. This allows you to work at your own pace, since you aren't editing the public-facing article.
• If you'll be making the edits within a span of few hours to a few days, you can use {{ under construction}} or {{ in use}} to indicate that.
• If the text is fully ready and you're going to add more citations quickly, you can indicate that in your edit summary. Uncited text can be removed at any time, so it's best to only do this if you'll be adding the requisite citations within a few hours.

There were also some issues with the text you added:

• The sentence beginning Pictures of the three Westport stations is not relevant. The publication may be a useful source, but there is no need to discuss it in the prose.
• Station lists should be as a table (see Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad#Station listing for a good example) rather than a list in the prose. The word "station" is not part of the proper names of the stations and should not be capitalized.
• Unless you can produce a source that says it's unknown, saying It is currently unclear if... is not appropriate wording for an article.

Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 23:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rhinecliff station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 ( talk) 05:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:MBTA bus routes has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm getting close to moving User:Mackensen/Toledo–Frankfort railway line into main space and would appreciate your feedback. In the manner of marginal lines in the Northeast/Midwest the post-1976 ownership is messy. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: Unsurprisingly, it looks pretty good. Some comments, in no particular order:

• You'll definitely want to sync this article with the main Ann Arbor Railroad article. Since this was the entire rail system of the Ann Arbor, save for the M&LS subsidiary, I'm worried there will be a lot of overlap.
• Most of the redlinks can be redirects either to this article or the main article, depending on where they're most discussed.
• Has the line actually been abandoned past Yuma, or just left OOS?
• Were the sections bypassed in 1896 and 1897 abandoned then, or later?
• Clarify that the GTW already had a line that directly paralleled the AA between Durand and Owosso - the existing wording confused me a bit.
• Clarify that the railroad built a new spur to Cherry Street station (I'm assuming that's the case and it wasn't on another railroad's line)

Best, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

All good points, thank you. Observations:

• Oh definitely. Several articles will need adjustment.
• Probably; though some are part of different systems.
• Well, a significant part is an actual rail trail. I haven't covered that yet.
• I think then? Meints covers it, but I'm not near Meints for a few days.
• Yeah, the whole business with the parallel GTW line confused me for days--including working out which one was abandoned, and the actual points of connection.
• Information on the Cherry Street street spur, and indeed all the industrial trackage in Toledo, was difficult to come by. Definitely new build though.

Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

If you need a list of Wiki railroads, so you can remove the locomotives fleet of that said railroad, because that's what your doing. Feel free to hollar. There's over 50 on here.

All edits, are in accordance to other articles.. Yeahimaboss413 ( talk) 15:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Yeahimaboss413: Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources in their entirety. Doing so will save you a lot of heartache. Citations to reliable sources are required for all information on Wikipedia. User-generated sites like railfan photo sites are not considered reliable sources. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article Rhinecliff station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rhinecliff station for comments about the article, and Talk:Rhinecliff station/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 ( talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Pi.1415926535. Having also received a note about the GAN backlog drive, I found an article about Pocinho railway station, which had a Rough Translation banner, which I sought to address. That led me to the Barca d'Alva railway station article, which also had a Rough Translation banner, and which I have also sought to rectify. Only when I had finished did I notice that you had recently failed it in a GA review, a decision which was absolutely correct at the time, but I thought that you might like to know that it is now in much better shape, and someone may put it back into the queue again. Who knows? Regards. Bob1960evens ( talk) 18:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Bob1960evens: Good work cleaning up the article, and thanks for letting me know! Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Good catch, thanks! I reported this to c:Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting. -- TheImaCow ( talk) 09:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Particularly, why does Chicago not get it's state listed after it? Further, since we are abbreviating District of Columbia as D.C., why do we not use abbreviations for all of the states? I just think it would be nice to follow a consistent format for all even if it is a small thing. Let me know your thoughts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=James_Whitcomb_Riley_(train)&diff=next&oldid=1211304973 Jcody21 ( talk) 20:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jcody21: In general, state names don't need to be abbreviated unless there's a compelling reason to, which there's not here. Chicago didn't have the state name probably because that article doesn't have it. (It's one of a small number of articles where that's the case; I think that convention comes from the AP style guide.) I'm fine if you'd prefer the link in the infobox to read as Chicago, Illinois.

Washington, D.C. is a special case, since it's a combined city and federal district. The "D.C." is part of the city name and not a state abbreviation. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Pi.1415926535! I noted that you have been making occasional edits to California High-Speed Rail. That article is in need of a general overhaul, as it has been growing in a somewhat uncontrolled manner during the past 2 or 3 years. I made some high-level suggestions in the discussion: Talk:California_High-Speed_Rail#Clean-up_and_Harmonisation. Given that the topic seems to match your interests, I'd like to ask if you would be interested in forming a team to give it a proper scrub. I am quite new to doing serious edits on Wikipedia and am keen to take it on, but for the sake of everyone I should not be doing it by myself. DracaenaGuianensis ( talk) 03:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ DracaenaGuianensis: I fully agree that the article needs an overhaul, and your suggestions on the talk page look good. Unfortunately, I'm probably not the right person for it. While I'm generally knowledgeable about California transit, I actually don't have more than a passing familiarity with CAHSR, nor do I have the time in the foreseeable future to give the article the attention it deserves. (For specific technical or writing questions, though, you're welcome to ask and I can take a quick look.) You might consider asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Best, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't recall if you're an AWB/JWB user, but the regular expression {\|.*\n(?:\|.*\n)+\n?\|} will capture most of the HTML-based station layout diagrams. Mackensen (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: I'm not, though I ought to learn one of these days. (And learn some basic regexes while I'm at it...) For larger stations like Union Station (New Haven) and San Jose Diridon station where services have fairly consistent tracks, I wonder what would be the best way to show that. Neither RDTs nor images are accessible (though images at least support alt text). Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think there's a fairly strong argument for not drilling all the way down to which services use which tracks. I don't do that on Swiss stations, even though there it can actually be sourced because the same trains always use the same platforms. Describing in prose with an accompanying image and/or RDT is probably the best approach. That way the RDT is supplementary and not carrying the full load. Thryduulf mentioned Stratford station#High-level platforms during the 2020 RfC; I think it's a little detailed, but a good approach overall. Mackensen (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: I can see the case with that for mainline stations, but for some station types (NYCS in particular) I think it's valuable to explain what services use what tracks. I 100% agree that the prose should always be the main information; any illustrations should supplement that. The Stratford example is a good way about it. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

On 19 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rhinecliff station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rhinecliff station was unusually large for a small hamlet due to the influence of John Jacob Astor IV and Levi P. Morton? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rhinecliff station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Rhinecliff station), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

— Ganesha811 ( talk) 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing Please stop reverting edits on the Amtrak Paint Schemes article.You keep reverting a change where I replaced an image of a phase VII P42 with a better one that showed the paint scheme better. And your claim of removing alt text makes no sense as all i did was replace the image while keeping the same caption as the original image. If you continue to revert without proper reason, you may be blocked from editing. Trimetwes fan1003 ( talk) 22:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Whether you meant to or not, you did remove alt text (mostly because Pi had just added it): Special:Diff/1214749103. You did it again here: Special:Diff/1214749478 when you reverted him. Alternative text is important for accessibility reasons. Threatening another user with a block isn't a good way to de-escalate an edit war. I'll start a discussion at Talk:Amtrak paint schemes. Mackensen (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I completely understand the reason for the rollback here, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Northeast_Corridor&diff=1214598980&oldid=1214596692&variant=en. I want to add references and give more info about the rail line as I have the documents and info from closed groups who work on and are Amtrak employees. How might I go about adding that and/or would this be too much to add? I always wanna add information to add more statistics and data when possible. Funforme3 ( talk) 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Funforme3: There are several important pages on sources that you should read:

• Verifiability: All information needs to be cited to publicly available, published sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, timetables, etc. Internal documents and other non-public sources are not suitable for Wikipedia; neither is information that is only available in a private forum.
• Reliable sources: These sources need to be reliable, which generally means they have been published by a reputable organization such as a government agency, academic journal, newspaper, etc where there is some layer of editorial fact-checking. Personal posts on Facebook or forums are not reliable sources.

Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a technical journal. The level of technical detail needs to be appropriate to the scope of the article; minutia such as details of the rail used is not useful on an article discussing a subject as broad as the Northeast Corridor. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Grand Rapids Subdivision probably shouldn't have gotten through AfC. The topic is certainly notable, but the article is messy railfan trivia, and the author got nailed for socking and competence a few months later: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xxx anon/Archive. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You may want to take a close look at {{ New England Central Railroad}}; the diagram for the Grand Rapids Subdivision was full of errors. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: Good catch, and thanks for trimming it down. I'm generally willing to give AfC reviewers some slack on technical subjects, but that article was egregiously bad in multiple aspects.

@ Trainsandotherthings: You're the expert here on the NECR; could you take a close look at the RDT? I see a few blatant errors at first glance that I'll correct, but I'm not very familiar with their freight operations. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I am not an expert on those RDT templates, I've come to prefer the OSM-linked maps as they show a far greater level of detail. That being said, it becomes a pain in the ass to make them for larger systems, and I spent many hours toiling in OSM to make the map you see in Providence and Worcester Railroad. Your edit was a major improvement. Strictly speaking, the line should have its southern terminus at the state pier in New London (though that's being rather detailed), and adding a few waypoints would probably make it easier to follow (such as Norwich and St. Albans). The yard at St. Albans is missing (NECR even has an active roundhouse and turntable there), along with a smaller yard at Brattleboro. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the NECR is on the high end of how complex of a railroad can be usefully shown with an RDT; the P&W certainly couldn't. At some point I'll probably create Central Vermont Railway mainline and move the RDT there; it'll be a lot cleaner not trying to indicate both connecting lines and operators. Thanks for the suggestions - I've added those to the RDT. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Side note, we should settle a convention on main line articles. I wrote Main Line (Reading Company) a while ago; I think it offends NCCAPS. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello Pi.1415926535,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

NJ Transit's habit of using the same name for lines and services has bugged me for a while, and I've been staring at Morristown Line for a few days trying to decide what to do. I think in the event of a split, the infrastructure would be located at Morristown Line (infrastructure); that's the actual name and probably the best disambiguator? I've done some drafts of covering both topics in the same article and it's rough. Your thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Oof, that's a tricky split to make. I haven't needed to split any of the MBTA Commuter Rail articles like that yet, but at least they generally have different names than the services. I don't love (infrastructure) - it's a little clunky - but I think you're right that it's the best available.

Is there enough material to bother with a split yet? Right now, it looks like most of the article length is that massive uncited description of the route. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 03:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

In terms of length, maybe not, though I'd also be pulling things from Morris and Essex Railroad, since the Morristown Line was that company's main line. I'm waiting for the first volume of Taber to show up before I tackle it. The route description is a mess and has been for years, and that really also belongs on the line. Main line (Morris and Essex Railroad) is possible, but it wouldn't pass muster as a common name. Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

For the Template:Rail Runner I would like you to explain it to me like i'm five, what part of WP:NAVBOX are you referring to that makes this template unworthy of the original design, yet the SunRail one, which is based off the original design from this one, is allowed to maintain its style? Raymos says hello 07:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ RaymosXN40: Thanks for asking. There are several issues with including the municipalities and rolling stock in these templates. In particular, it is incompatible with the guideline that All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. The municipalities are wholly separate subjects from the rail service; the articles on them are unlikely to discuss the rail service with more than a single sentence mentioning a station. It is also incompatible with guidelines 3 and 5 - the municipality articles are unlikely to link to most of the other articles, and they would not be appropriate "see also" links.

For the rolling stock, while it is more connected to the rail service, it is still not useful for it to be in the template. The rolling stock is unlikely to be linked from any of the station articles, and vice versa. It also presents an issue with the bidirectionality guideline - it would be neither useful nor appropriate to have navboxes for numerous rail systems on the articles about the rolling stock.

It's not that {{ SunRail}} was "allowed to maintain its style" - it was just as much an issue, it simply was that no one had yet fixed it to comply with the guidelines. I've now done so. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 05:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

is their any reason why you deleted the "Gallery" portion in the gallery place chinatown article? I ask because that is one of the major transfer stations with two levels and also one of the busiest stations with a lot of unique features to it Gymrat16 ( talk) 00:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Gymrat16: Per WP:GALLERY, a gallery is not for including an indiscriminate selection of images in an article - they should only be used when there is a specific need to display a set of images. The gallery that I removed was a random selection of images that had no specific purpose. Other than the photo of the artwork (which I replaced with an image without copyright issues), they didn't contribute to readers understanding the subject beyond the text and inline images. In general, it's very rare for a properly researched and written station article to need a gallery. I think the only one I've found necessary was at Alewife station where there's a set of artworks discussed in the text. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 06:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

alright so can I at least add back the Yellow line artwork, chinese art work then that transfer Red/Green picture back? Then done? Gymrat16 ( talk) 22:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Gymrat16: No, I don't think there's a need to include additional images at this time. Gallery Place station is only 600 words, and none of the other photos would substantially add to readers' understanding of the subject. The Commons category, which contains all of our images of the station, is already linked at the bottom. If you want to improve the article, adding citations (especially to the unsourced items in the history section) would be much more valuable than adding images. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

you literally said though that the art work was fine though. Metro has always been well known for its fancy art work and other stations have "gallery" files under them such as Union Station, Rosslyn and Wiehle Reston East have that on their articles so why can't Gallery Place Chinatown? Especially since that station is far more popular and distinctive than those other 3? I am not questioning your thoughts I am just confused and kind to why this is occurring for other stations that are no where near as significant as Gallery Place Chinatown. I say this because I know the DC Metro system better than anyone being from Alexandria. Gymrat16 ( talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Im not trying to be difficult by any means I was only saying that I was just trying to improve that article by articulating what has been done on others. Gymrat16 ( talk) 23:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Gymrat16: Again, please read WP:GALLERY. Articles do not have to - and in fact should not - include images of every single aspect of the subject. Images in articles should illustrate specific aspects of the text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an image gallery - that's why we have Wikimedia Commons for images. None of the galleries you mentioned in other articles are appropriate, either; I have removed the galleries and incorporated images into the text where appropriate

The example I gave of Alewife is an unusual case where the artwork is particularly notable (several pieces have their own articles), there is enough information to have a separate section, and high-quality free-use images are available of almost all the pieces. That's not the case here; there's only a few sentences about the artworks. the only image we have of The Yellow Line is poor quality, and Commons cannot host most images of The Glory of the Chinese Descendants because it is a post-1989 copyrighted artwork. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Alright man and I never said having every single aspect was appropriate in fact I couldn't agree more they don't have to nor should they. I was only talking about things that were unique and distinctive that not many other articles might have and simply just have a healthy discussion with you since we are both very knowledgable. Hopefully that makes a bit more sense and sorry if I wasn't clear on that and gave the wrong impression to you the first time. Gymrat16 ( talk) 00:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply