This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from June 2022 (the end of Archive 17) to October 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.

The article Richmond station (California) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richmond station (California) 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. ~  KN2731 { talk · contribs} 13:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Science Park station (MBTA) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science Park 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

On 2 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richmond station (California), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Richmond station includes a "rather disquieting" artwork by William Mitchell? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richmond station (California). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Richmond station (California)), 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) 00:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Foxboro station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Foxboro 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) 21:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

On 8 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Science Park station (MBTA), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Science Park station was built despite the objections of the operating agency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Science Park station (MBTA). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Science Park 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.

— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm finally trying to write a proper article about SEPTA service beyond Norristown ( User:Mackensen/Pottsville line) and ran across an interesting if brief section in the USRA final system plan that I'd overlooked before: [1]. If I'm reading that right, that's every commuter service that by 1975 (a) wasn't covered by some kind of subsidy or contract or (b) wasn't within a public agency's jurisdiction and (c) used a bankrupt's lines:

• Calumet (train) (survives until 1990)
• Penn Line
• Crusader (train) (through service ends in 1981)
• Cleveland commuter rail (ends in 1977)
• Wilmington/Newark Line beyond Marcus Hook (SEPTA eventually restores this in 1989?)
• SEPTA diesel service beyond Norristown and Lansdale (ends in 1981)
• Providence/Stoughton Line beyond Sharon (?)
• Framingham/Worcester Line beyond Framingham

-- Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Interesting! MBTA policy was initially to only subsidize services that had ICC permission to discontinue, and were within the MBTA district; outside towns could contract separately with the railroads. This resulted in some very granular subsidies (and discontinuance of stops). Service to Sharon and Canton Junction was subsidized beginning in 1973, as that was the outer limit of the MBTA district; subsidy to Providence and Stoughton did not begin until 1976.

Thanks for taking on Pottsville. Hopefully having a decent article will stave off some of the foamers who seem particularly fond of the line. Two nitpicks on the RDT for the RDG (hehe): I'd note the spur to Elm Street, and I'd use mileages rather than (often variable) running times. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 17:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

My thinking on running times is that it makes it clear that it's a service. We have mileage based RDTs for the Norristown Branch, Ninth Street Branch, and Main Line. You're right about Elm Street; oddly the timetables didn't show that (they did show the branching at North Broad). Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Pi, I was cleaning up some vandalism on Fore River Bridge and I noticed this edit of yours [2], marked rmv spam, that removed some content that seems reasonably valuable to me. Could you take another look?-- agr ( talk) 16:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Rosales has been spamming Wikipedia under a number of sockpuppets for over a decade now. Both portions of what I removed (the Rosales puffery and the non-notable award) were added by now-blocked Barbaragomperts, a confirmed sock. You're welcome to re-add anything with new citations (and without the PR wording), though I don't think that award is significant enough to merit inclusion. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 17:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, I had some inspiration to work on an article for the ongoing issues the MBTA had this year. I wasn't sure if it was really worthy of an article, but there's been a lot of news lately about the situation as a whole that mentions things kind of like "a string of incidents" so I thought it worked. My draft is at Draft:2022 MBTA Safety Crisis.

I'm not really that experienced as an editor, so while I am allowed to make new pages, I put it AFC, which I am now regretting as it means I can't approve it myself. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article. I think the subject matter is hard to write neutrally about at length, but I tried to keep it pretty even. Since you seem like a really experienced MBTA editor I thought I would show you the article, and see if you had ideas or comments on it. ForksForks ( talk) 17:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ ForksForks: Thanks for letting me know about the draft. As a high-level comment, I'm not sure it's worth having an article just yet - it remains to be seen exactly what the FTA investigation will conclude, and so on. Some items are questionably related to the actual crisis, in particular the Green Line shutdowns. The branch-by-branch closures are for track work and installation of the train protection system (the latter a response to the 2008 crash, not the recent ones). The GLX shutdown is Medford Branch integration and Union Square Branch punchlist items; its only relation to safety issues seems to be the GC Garage demolition. They're frustrating and disruptive closures, for sure, but they aren't relevant if the article is specifically focused on safety issues. It might be best to have this be a several-paragraph section of History of the MBTA for now, and hold off on the separate article.

As a style note, article titles and section headings should be in sentence case (i.e. 2022 MBTA safety crisis) except for proper nouns - see MOS:CAPS and MOS:HEAD. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 23:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Wonderful thanks for taking a look. I’ll definitely think about what the best merge is. I’ve never really liked adding to history sections of existing articles, because I prefer areas where I feel like I’m not messing with someones body of work ForksForks ( talk) 00:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Neither History of the MBTA nor Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority#History are in particularly good shape at the present - they're both rather disorganized, with way too much focus on the Baker admin - so you would be improving either article by adding to them. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The question remains, how the heck do I withdraw from AFC? ForksForks ( talk) 01:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oops didn’t mean to sound sarcastic, was cracking a joke. I legit am not sure ForksForks ( talk) 01:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

No worries! I think I've de-submitted the article. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 02:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, wonderful. By the way, if you have images you need, I may or may not be a New Englander. Happy to poke around places. ForksForks ( talk) 19:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind! Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Lechmere station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lechmere 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie ( talk) 02:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, Pi.1415926535. I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider applying to become a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. MB 06:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey, it looks like you could help out with patrolling new articles. There are new train station articles nearly every day. Even if you didn't look at anything but these, it would be a big help. Let me know if you have any questions. MB 06:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ MB: I can consider it, though I can't promise how much time I'll be able to put into it - is it worth requesting the right for occasional patrolling? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 06:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

It usually take no more than a couple of minutes to review an article - look at the sources and decide if its a notable topic and belongs in the encyclopedia. If not, tag it for deletion (CSD or PROD or AFD or Dratify it). If you stick to topics you know well (and the sources are in a language you read), it really doesn't take much time. We would like to see 100 reviews per year - which should be about an hour a month. We have a backlog of nearly 10,000 and need more reviewers working at it at whatever rate they can contribute. There is no expectation that a reviewer be active every day, week, or month. The minimum to keep the permission is to do one review a year. If you only did a handful in a year, it's probably not worth it. Besides, the pay is lousy - you get a plain Barnstar for 100 reviews in a year, or higher level ones starting at 360 (~one review a day). MB 07:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Gotcha. I think I'll pass for now - I can't guarantee there would be enough articles in my area of expertise to review 100 a year - but I may reconsider later. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 03:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

OK, please keep this is mind. While we would "like to see 100 a year", there is no requirement to do any more than 1/year (and even that is not "enforced"). Here is a list of articles that currently need review in the transportation category. If you think you could assess a handful of those, it would still help. MB 16:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

A while back, you extended to me an offer to review a GAN of mine, provided it was in an area you didn't typically edit in. Well, I finally have one about ready. The Sand Springs Railway is in Oklahoma, and I've been chipping away at both a 5X expansion and bringing the article to GA level. Are you interested in reviewing it, if I nominate it? Thanks. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'd be able to review it. A couple suggestions for now:

• Add a KML map with {{ Attached KML}}. I use Google My Maps to create them, but there are plenty of other ways.
• Add a map image. This 1915 map I just uploaded shows some of the route in detail, while the 1912 USGS topo ( source) shows the full route. (You can use {{ Annotated image}} to crop an image within the article.) The map here can also be uploaded to Commons as {{ PD-US-no notice}}.
• It appears that the former waiting station building in Sand Springs is still extant, though it's one block over from what that page says.
• Add some details about the route (probably in its own section): Where did/does it start and end, how long was/is the mainline, where were/are shops located, etc. Might also be worth adding the street-running routes in the two cities; the 1915 map shows the Tulsa end clearly.
• Send me an email, and I'll send you the relevant page of The Electric Interurban Railways in America.
• See if you can obtain any more recent photos of freight operations and/or the preserved streetcar. There are a number of images of both on flickr; many uploaders are willing to change to a Commons-compatible license when asked.

Cheers, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the suggestions. I've implemented a few and plan to upload that map from American Rails. I just formally nominated the article, if you're interested in starting the review. No rush, though. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Looking good so far; I'll take the review when I have a chance. Don't forget to email me so I can send you the scans! Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 04:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you prodded Kegley station (Illinois). Railway stations are usually considered notable, and the article has references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Eastmain: The result of a recent RFC was that railroad stations are not automatically considered notable, and are subject to the GNG as with any other article. In this case, I can't find any useful information about the station to write a useful article - not even when it opened or closed - much less any of the substantial independent coverage required by the GNG. Neither of the two sources appear to give any more information than the station's existence.

In this case, after doing a little research, I'm not sure this ever was a passenger station. The Edgewood Cutoff article claims that the line never had passenger service; it certainly did not by 1932, just five years after opening. On the Eldorado District, which crossed the cutoff near the claimed location of Kegley station, there was not a station at Kegley in 1932 nor 1919. Source #2 in the article lists all stations (i.e. points on a timetable, which includes sidings and freight stations), not just passenger stations, and that 1932 timetable doesn't indicate it as any more than a controlled siding. The image in the external link is consistent with it being a small freight station or section house. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 08:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The article East Somerville station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:East Somerville 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 22:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit 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 Truflip99 -- Truflip99 ( talk) 16:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Pi.1415926535. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Gilman Square station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gilman Square 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 11:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

On 28 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lechmere station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lechmere station was proposed for replacement in 1924 – yet was in use until 2020? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lechmere station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Lechmere 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, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

From the Boston Subdivision page's citations, CSX's Boston Subdivision appears on a 2004 timetable to be a line continuing east to Cove Interlocking, where the Worcester Main Line junctions with the Northeast Corridor. I had been considering noting this on station pages along the MBTA Framingham/Worcester Line as CSX does operate freight service over the line east of Worcester occasionally (to my awareness, this largely consists of Framingham locals and freight moves to Readville 1-yard, which currently operate via the Framingham Secondary and Franklin Line, with a backup move at Readville). While I have seen documented use of Worcester Main Line (most noticeably with the Allston Multimodal project), I have seen the name applied to the former Worcester, Nashua and Rochester Railroad as well, which is currently referred to as the "Worcester Branch" instead.

My current thought process is to do something similar to what we ended up coming to a consensus on with the Attleboro Line, using both names on the pages for stations on the shared corridor, but I thought I'd run it by you since I was under the impression that you were in the middle of working on the GA process for most of these stations yourself.

With thanks, Red Pokemonred200 ( talk) 22:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Pokemonred200: I was just about to ping you about this. My understanding (unfortunately, based primarily on forums and other non-RS) is that since the 2012 transfer of ownership / 2013 transfer of dispatching, the portion from Cove Interlocking (where it separates from the Northeast Corridor near Back Bay) to CP 45 (the west end of the existing station siding at Worcester) is the MBTA Worcester Main Line (often called Worcester Line), and that the CSX Boston Subdivision runs from CP 92 ( in far eastern Springfield near the Wilbraham border) to CP 45. Certainly, given that CSX no longer owns or dispatches east of CP 45, it would be incorrect to use the 2004 timetable to claim that "Boston Subdivision" still applies east of Worcester. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 23:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I will note that, while I was unsure about using it, New England Railroading seems to use orders that it claims are from 2021 to reference the Berkshire and Boston Subdivisions, with this one using info from the RadioReference Wiki. It notes the information is active as of February 13, 2021 and is set to be updated on April 26th 2031, with a statement that the Boston Sub runs from South Station to Mile Post QB91.5, with the MBTA controlling the line from CP 3 to CP 45. I am not sure how reliable of a source RadioReference is, so I was unsure of its usefulness for page updates, though it is all I have at current that's publicly available information.

I will note that the 2004 timetable notes Cove Interlocking as the eastern terminus of the Boston Sub despite the line having already been under state ownership and dispatching east of Framingham by that point, so I feel like there is a possibility that some of the prior information remains relevant.

(As an aside, this page also notes the junction w/ the Providence & Worcester Main as also being the beginning of the Worcester Sub, which is the only place outside of List of CSX Transportation lines that I have seen this name used to refer to the old WN&R. Is this worth looking into as well? I am still searching for alternate sources if applicable, but I imagine this information is to be difficult to find public documentation for.) Pokemonred200 ( talk) 23:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the various railfan radio guides etc tend to be a mishmash of questionably sourced info from employee timetables, hearsay, and so on. I wouldn't put a lot of stock into it. It's entirely possible that CSX still refers to the CP3-to-CP45 section as the Boston Subdivision, despite that no longer being the name outside the company. @ Mackensen: pinging you in case you have any insights.

I've always heard "Worcester Branch" for the Worcester–Ayer line, though Pan Am used "Worcester Main Line". You are correct - its southern terminus is considered Barbers, with the Worcester–Barbers section part of the P&W Gardner Branch. I'm not sure of the exact historical reasons for that. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I have no specific insight on this question; though the name used by the state must appear in a document somewhere. There would be something to be said for simply calling this the Boston to Worcester line or some such, and then noting the various internal company names in the text. Too many lines in the states don't have common names at all. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker)I think Mackensen has the right idea. Just call it the Boston to Worcester line, or even make an article on the entire line from Selkirk to Boston. It's more or less the Boston and Albany Railroad main line, maybe call it that? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 02:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

You raise an interesting question. As I've expanded coverage of the former Reading lines around Philadelphia I've often written two articles, somewhat in parallel: one covering the Reading history and one covering the post-Reading history. Main Line (Reading Company) and New York Branch are good examples of this. In the case of the Reading main in particular, I justified it on the grounds that under Conrail and its successors the line was split operationally and combined with the Lebanon Valley Branch. Still, I can see the argument for writing a single article. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm wary of writing as though US railroad history stops in the 1970s, and everything after that is downstream/unimportant. Admittedly the 1970s are a major inflection point. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I would definitely support having Boston–Albany line or some similarly generic title as a single article. It has a more coherent history than the Philly-area lines, for which separate articles are fine. That lets us cover the whole history of the line in one go, and would allow Boston and Albany Railroad to focus on the whole company and not just the mainline. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 17:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I talked about this with Red off-wiki yesterday, and I mentioned that I thought "Boston Subdivision/Worcester Main Line" sounded like a good way to describe the line. However, it also struck me as a bit imprecise because there are so many different names for the line. A new article about the "Boston–Albany line" or the "Boston and Albany Railroad main line" may work, as the topic is clearly notable, but we also can't describe the subject in the article about the Boston and Albany Railroad or the Boston Subdivision. (Incidentally, a lot of railroad articles have this problem, in that a rail line is described only in the article about the railroad itself.) – Epicgenius ( talk) 21:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

In many cases, it is desirable not to have separate articles on a rail line and the company that built it. For instance, do we really need an article both on the Nashua and Lowell Railroad and on the 12 miles of track from Nashua to Lowell? If there's really something more to be said that isn't just redundant, then it makes sense to have a dedicated article just for the rail line. A good example is the New Haven–Springfield Line, which has far too much information to simply be contained within Hartford and New Haven Railroad. The CSX line from Selkirk to Boston is essentially the biggest rail freight gateway between New England and the rest of the country, the line as a whole likely does merit a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

That's a difference of philosophy; I'd probably consider a standalone article for the line. Even the lead blurs the distinction between the physical line (extant) and the company (gone for close to 80 years): The Nashua and Lowell Railroad (N&L) was a 14-mile-long (23 km) railroad. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I mean, I wouldn't throw a fit if someone made a separate article for the line, but I don't feel it really communicates anything that can't be within the Nashua and Lowell Railroad article. My concern is avoiding redundancy - the more articles we have, the more spread out information is, and an article on the line itself would repeat a lot of what's in the Nashua and Lowell Railroad article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 02:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

(Red here, trying to log in on a new computer but not remembering which password I use for WP). I will note that my suggestion for using Boston Subdivision/Worcester Main Line comes from seeing what the operators themselves use, with CSX Timetables using the former and the MBTA/MassDOT appearing to use the latter (similarly to how the MBTA uses the "Attleboro Line" to refer to the segment of the Northeast Corridor that they own, or how CSX had previously listed the Miami Subdivision as continuing to the Miami Airport station on their Jacksonville Division Timetable, despite the line being sold to FDOT before Miami Airport station was built (to my awareness, though CSX did continue to dispatch the line until 2015)). This gives me the impression that on lines with trackage rights they use their own designations for the sake of personal simplicity, but a lot can change in 20 years.

I feel like Boston-Albany line is a decent compromise, as publicly available information is likely quite outdated (being from 2004 and all). It's hard to say given it's not an official name, but at the end of the day, it's better than not being able to come to an agreement. 76.17.120.125 ( talk) 00:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Magoun Square station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Magoun Square 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 Steelkamp -- Steelkamp ( talk) 01:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Fitchburg Cutoff you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fitchburg Cutoff 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 02:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

On 6 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article East Somerville station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that East Somerville station is planned to open more than 95 years after its predecessor closed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/East Somerville station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, East Somerville 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) 12:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I have just found out that you were one of the editors that were behind all that, removing the WMATA type from major hub stations. This type of stuff is borderline disruptive editing, and it needs to stop, unless if you want to be blocked for disruptive editing. Williamwang363 ( talk) 11:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Ball Square station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ball Square 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 13:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

On 13 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gilman Square station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a lion's head was preserved during construction of Gilman Square station? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gilman Square station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Gilman Square 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) 00:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply

As you may know, coordinates should conform to WP:OPCOORD, a guideline which I do not entirely agree with, but one that has consensus. The guideline uses the size of the object to determine the level of precision needed. Gilman Square station is a 100-150 m object, which by use of the precision tables yields D°m's.s" (verging on D°m's") or D.dddd°. Personally, I prefer to use D°m's" whenever possible, followed by D°m's.s" and then D.dddd°, for aesthetic reasons but also because degrees-minutes-seconds is the Wikidata default. There is a move afoot to have all coordinates on the Wikipedias draw directly from Wikidata, which causes ugly things to happen if decimal coordinates were used in the Wikidata item. Wikidata takes the decimal coords and converts them to degrees-minutes-seconds without rounding them, and then, when the coords are brought back into Wikipedia, they typically have far too many digits. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply

As I have explained to you before, railway stations are usually linear structures for which the narrowest dimension is the defining size - in this case, about 6 meters wide. That means that precision of 0.01 arcseconds or 0.00001 decimal degrees both proper and necessary. The coordinates that you left, for example, missed the platform entirely. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply

It doesn't say that anywhere else, and why not attempt to make the coordinates look better? And my coordinates did not miss the platform, they missed the canopy. I would prefer D°m's.s" over D.ddddd, which is more (and unnecessarily) precise. As an aside, you could also be perceived by some editors as engaging in a slow motion edit war over Iabot adding archives. I urge you to consider relaxing your attempts to exert WP:OWNERSHIP of these Boston transit-related articles, on issues that have long ago achieved consensus in other transit articles. Abductive ( reasoning) 00:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The coordinates you provided missed both platform and canopy by over a meter, and were ~40 meters away from the actual center of the station. That is a significant error, and is the reason why more precision is needed.

The cosmetic edits that you make to DYK articles are generally not helpful: on recent articles I have seen you remove HTML comments for no reason, replace templates with redirects that have less obvious names, add incorrect coordinates, and cause citation bot to add a blatantly incorrect journal name. Those last two items make me worried that you are making these edits without properly checking the results. I have no issues with other editors making constructive edits - that's the whole reason I like Wikipedia - but these edits are not constructive. From my perspective, they are done primarily to make the articles conform to your personal preferences ("look better").

Citation bot does make errors, but editors are going to keep running it on masses of articles. They can run it on categories and batch jobs hundreds or thousands of articles at a time. I have never seen the bot make an error on a HathiTrust field before, it might be best to mention this at the bot's talk page.

Some users may object to certain aspects of my tidying up the articles, but I do not make very many errors in coordinates. (In the case of Gilman Square station I was trying to match the coordinates already in the article.) Neither do you—you are a very rare case of an editor who at least tries to hit the object. Most coordinates miss the target and are horribly formatted.

"Looking better" is a valid goal. Moreover, consistency in coordinate formatting encourages more beginning users to use appropriate coordinates, since they are likely copying from existing articles. Abductive ( reasoning) 03:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

As I have explained multiple times, archiving live sources is based on misconceptions rather than policy or fact. Some automatically chosen archive urls may be paywalled or have other issues (when other dates are not); manual checking is needed for every single link. That's much easier to do when a small number of dead urls are archived than when dozens of live urls are archived. I run checklinks when nominating an article for DYK (and responsible reviewers will also run it), meaning that there are unlikely to be uncaught dead links when the article appears on the front page. Archiving all these live sources adds a large amount of text to the citations - a net negative for the reader - without any real benefits. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I understand what you are saying about Iabot adding text. But consider this; users are going to keep running it. Why? Because the purpose is not to clutter up articles with useless archives of live sites, but to preserve links when they go dead in the future. After all, the bot can't archive a totally dead link. You and a handful of other editors keep reverting the bot, but I have found that there is a strong correction between editors who get the coordinates to hit the target, and those who object to the bot. Consequently, I usually don't revert them or run the bot again. Abductive ( reasoning) 03:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

On 14 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that construction of Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit uncovered tracks from the California Street Cable Railroad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit), 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) 00:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree that having all of the {{ rcb}} as added in this diff for 30th Street Station is a bit hectic, but I quite liked the addition of {{ rint}} at this diff. Would you be opposed to if I reverted the page to the second diff? I don't want to partially undo your undo unilaterally. Tartar Torte 20:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ TartarTorte Yes, please do. I only intended to undo the last edit, and forgot that rollback undoes everything. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

On 22 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fitchburg Cutoff, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pedro II of Brazil examined the signal system on the Fitchburg Cutoff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fitchburg Cutoff. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Fitchburg Cutoff), 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) 00:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC) reply

My apologies, I only now noticed the article was a GA candidate. Was just about to head to your talk page to see how to work the changes in. HangingCurve ^{Swing for the fence} 02:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not doing anything wrong. What about those of us who want to know where they are right now? 72.89.23.197 ( talk) 19:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC) reply

That is the domain of railfan sites like The Diesel Shop, not encyclopedias like Wikipedia. Active rosters for locomotive models are generally not kept on Wikipedia because they are difficult-to-impossible to keep up to date (reliable sources aren't always available) and tend to take up too much space in articles. If you wish to maintain an active roster, I recommend editing on the CPTDB wiki which is a more appropriate location. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC) reply