This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from April 2023 (the end of Archive 19) to December 2023. 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.

While looking into the Suburban Rapid Transit Company, I've encountered references to the New York, Danbury and Boston Railroad, apparently an abortive attempt by the New York and New England Railroad to gain access to New York City. Know anything further about it? I think it was given up around 1891. Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: Unfortunately I don't know anything, though I poked around a bit. Articles from 1883 and 1886 indicate that the northern portion was to reuse the circa-1870 grading of the New York and Ridgefield Railroad (apparently also known as the Ridgefield and New York). Interestingly, they also indicate it would connect to the 2nd Avenue El. I'm not sure whether it's that line or the "Danbury and Portchester" (a never-built 1900s NYNH&H subsidiary) on the 1915 valuation maps (the very large maps connecting Port Chester and Danbury). This book discusses both lines, though there's only a handful of library copies around. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) I don't have a copy yet (and reworking and bringing NY&NE to GA status is a big project I haven't started yet), but a book was written on the NY&NE in 2021. That might provide some answers. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks all. I've put in an interlibrary loan request for Forgotten Railroads Through Westchester County. Six copies is enough for one of them to be circulating, I would think. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Having pulled my own copy of Forgotten Railroads, it's not very informative. From combing through Google Books, it appears that the New York, Danbury and Boston and the Ridgefield and New York both existed simultaneously and aspired to take over the old Port Chester and Ridgefield grading. The Ridgefield and New York eventually fell into the hands of the New Haven; it you look carefully at those valuation maps, you can see land transfers to the R&NY. It got a series of charter extension pushing its time to completion out to 1909; at that point, the right-of-way was apparently transferred to the New Haven, which described it as "incomplete and abandoned" at the time of its final valuation report. The NYD&B last shows some activity in early 1887 and then disappears entirely from the record. Choess ( talk) 23:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hellooooo!

This kitten is very thankful for all your work on transit infrastructure Wikipedia!

Cheers, Elan

ElanHR ( talk) 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I'll be honest, I'm not sure I have enough energy to keep up the fight on his adding upright to every image. He's obviously not listening to anything we said. Famartin ( talk) 22:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Are you aware of any photos of the yard in Waterbury, CT that are compatible with Wikipedia? I'm planning an article on the yard there and I don't see anything on Commons... I know you were in Waterbury recently, did you happen to get any photos? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Trainsandotherthings: I have a couple shots of the old freight houses that I'll try to upload today. Nothing other than those unfortunately. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I did find a 1909 photo of a train at the yard in the Bridgeport Herald, which is better than nothing. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Trainsandotherthings: Photos are now here: commons:Category:Waterbury freight houses. Good luck with the yard article! I'm planning to expand the Waterbury Union Station article eventually - I also got photos of it in 2020 - and I'm sure it will share a lot of the sources about the circa-1909 realignment project. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks again. I've started working on the yard article in userspace and should get it published this weekend. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I've run into a few of your clippings on newspapers.com for the Burlington and Lamoille Railroad; I'm thinking of writing up the branch. Two areas resisting research so far:

• the actual route of the B&L between Burlington and Essex Junction
• persistence of operation on the branch between Cambridge Junction and Jeffersonville after the 1938 abandonment.

My Vermont sources are still pretty thin. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: Do you have Lindsell's The Rail Lines of Northern New England? If not, I can send a scan of the pages. Note that both Lindsell and Karr's Lost Railroads incorrectly give 1889 as the abandonment date west of Essex Junction; those newspaper clips (see Union Station (Burlington, Vermont)#1867 station for a coherent narrative) establish 1880. Not a RS, but this map traces out the route. It matches what I'm got on my online map (which I think I've shared with you), which I can convert to KML or GeoJSON for the article.

From a search of my own, it looks like the line was actually kept as far as Cambridge (the Cambridge–Jeffersonville segment bought by a shipper): [1] [2] Service ended on a Saturday in 1950, and tracks were taken up on Monday: [3]

Some potentially useful clips of bus and trucking after abandonment: [4] [5] [6] [7] Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Pi.1415926535 awesome, thank you. I've just ordered the Lindsell and should have it in about a week. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Southbridge Branch (New England) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Southbridge Branch (New England) for comments about the article, and Talk:Southbridge Branch (New England)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 20:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Norfolk station (MBTA) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Norfolk station (MBTA) for comments about the article, and Talk:Norfolk station (MBTA)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie ( talk) 03:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Cross-border services don't present a huge data problem in the states, but they're a mess and a potential source of data duplication in Europe. I think I have a solution to this, as demonstrated at Module:Adjacent stations/Trenitalia (see bottom, and my most recent edit). The key is just determining where the data should "live". Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: That's an impressively elegant solution. I had no idea you could have adjacent stations modules cross-reference each other. Might also be useful for the pre-Amtrak LD trains jointly operated by multiple railroads, especially the UP/GN/NP pool trains.

Unrelatedly, thoughts about this? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The one downside, or side effect anyway, is that it does mean the second module is transcluded everywhere the first one is. I think that's an acceptable trade-off to avoid duplication. On the other matter, replied on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thinking about the See also sections on Center City Commuter Connection and elsewhere--is the concept distinct enough in the literature that we could write a real article about it? I know Alon Levy has blogged about it, but we need more. Mackensen (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: Funny you should ask that - I just removed the See also section from North–South Rail Link earlier today. I've never seen any real academic discussion of through-running center-city rail tunnels in general; the two Google Scholar results are both in the context of electrification rather than tunnel specific. (Levy's writing is generally good quality, my occasional urge to shake them screaming "this is not Europe and not all the conditions are the same" aside, but I don't think they qualify as literature for this purpose.) I can't even think of where it would be best to stick in a paragraph or two as a redirect target. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 04:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I dropped him a line asking if he knows; I figure it's possible someone wrote something in Transportation Research Record or some such. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, I asked in the comments and got gatekept (not by Levy): [8]. Make of that what you will. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Why are you tagging for deletion numerous categories relating to former railroad stations, then citing CSD C1 (which gives the rationale for CSD as being that the cat is empty), when the only reason the categories are empty is because you have been emptying them? Is this being discussed anywhere? I don't have much interest in the subject of these categories myself, but this practice does not appropriate to me. SJ Morg ( talk) 06:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SJ Morg: I'm cleaning up Category:Railway stations in the United States by company by moving stations of companies that no longer run passenger trains to Category:Former railway stations in the United States by company. There was a lot of inconsistency in these categories; in many cases, both the "XYZ stations" and "Former XYZ stations" categories already simultaneously existed for companies that haven't run a train in decades. All of those are 1-to-1 moves with no loss of information; hopefully it's uncontroversial maintenance.

As I'm doing those moves, I've discovered a small number of intersection categories of the form "Former XYZ stations in [US State]". Again, this was very inconsistently done: only a small number of railroads had these intersection categories, all of them were sparsely populated, and no railroad had enough subcategories for all its former stations. Given WP:SMALLCAT and the apparent lack of interest in creating more of these intersection categories, I've started to upmerge them into the parent categories. There were never a large number: I upmerged six of them today, and there are five remaining. I can pause with the upmerges if you desire, but I thought it was a reasonable place to be bold with a small number of inconsistent categories. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the explanation. (And sorry to be slow to reply, but I have not had any time for Wikipedia since I posted that message – and almost didn't post it, for that reason, but it seemed urgent given that you'd started the clock ticking on some [presumably-] automated deletions.) The ones I noticed were of the format "Former Union Pacific Railroad stations in [US State]". I accept that WP:SMALLCAT may have applied, but by the time I noticed the deletion tags you'd already emptied all those categories, so I didn't know how many articles had been in them (but knew it was more than, say, three or four in some) – and I didn't want to spend time trying to figure out how many items had been in them before you'd emptied them, and WP:SMALLCAT is clearly subjective anyway. It still seems questionable to tag a category for deletion based solely on the rationale it is empty, when in fact these cats were not empty. However, I really don't have enough interest in the subject of these cats to want to spend more time on it, and given that I've rarely had any objection to your edits in the past, I am willing to drop this. SJ Morg ( talk) 10:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I just created a stub for Yankee Clipper (train). Thought you might like to take a look and add a little. Thanks! -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 03:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, just looking to get some insight into why you reverted my edit on Back Bay station. The North Station connection seemed to me like useful context w. r. t. the relatively high level of ridership for a non-terminal station, and there's official sources telling one to transfer that way; it's not just something you hear on the street as an informal tip. I certainly didn't think in any case it would only be of interest to a tourist. I only edit sporadically but I'm rarely so far off base I get reverted. Just let me know, Techn1ciaN-A1- ( talk) 06:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Techn1ciaN-A1-, thanks for reaching out. I tend to err on the side of not including such details, especially since there's Wikivoyage where travel tips are welcome. In this case, while it's widely discussed on travel forums and the like, I can't find any reliable source (and in particular, nothing from the MBTA or Amtrak) that actually discusses using Back Bay to make the transfer. Verifiability is always important, and especially so since I'm planning to expand the article and submit it for Good Article review in the relatively near future. If you are able to find a reliable source, I'm not opposed to having it in the article; however, I don't think it's important enough for the lede. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the prompt response. With respect to an official source, Amtrak has this to say if you search a trip that starts on the Downeaster and continues in Boston to points west (or vice versa): "This trip requires a transfer between Boston North and Back Bay stations, which are one and a half miles apart. Taxis and the MBTA Orange Line subway are available. Amtrak does not offer connecting transfers to/from North Station; you will need to arrange your own transportation." When you actually buy the travel you will also notice that your continuing ticket starts at BBY and not BOS (or vice versa, ends at BBY). This seems official as it gets to me although I acknowledge I'm not sure how you would go about actually citing it. Best, Techn1ciaN-A1- ( talk) 07:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) Amtrak does mention it on the Downeaster page: [9]. I'm on the fence about whether it should be included but it's a rare case of a bookable connection through Amtrak that includes a "self-transfer". I can't think of another one in the system at present. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

If you book a ticket including a Thruway bus, there are some cities where you must self-transfer between the train station and the bus depot (I believe it's El Paso, Flagstaff, SLC, and Portland OR). I think you are correct that BON<->BBY is the only train-to-train self transfer.

Back on topic: By way of illustration, here is an an actual ticket with Downeaster through travel. Techn1ciaN-A1- ( talk) 19:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm thinking of taking a run at fully telling the Amtrak mail and express story, starting with the ExpressTrak perishables business and leading up to finally moving User:Mackensen/Network Growth Strategy into the mainspace. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: Sounds great - let me know how I can help. How many articles do you think it'll end up being? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

At the moment I think three new articles, plus one stub-and-rewrite. Amtrak has handled mail and/or express since 1971 and still does. Amtrak Express probably needs to be stubbed and rewritten. Amtrak#Baggage and cargo services should be expanded. List of Amtrak rolling stock will need to include all five types of purpose-built non-passenger stock: (1) autoracks, (2) material handling cars, (3) roadrailers, (4) express box cars, and (5) the refrigerated box cars that ExpressTrak used. I doubt any of the five justifies its own article.

ExpressTrak was a separate company and initiative that doesn't entirely overlap with Network Growth Strategy. That's two articles. The Washington Fruit Express can be covered in ExpressTrak.

Pennsylvanian and Three Rivers don't adequately explain how mail and express business drove timetabling decisions with those trains. The main east-west LDs out of Chicago were major express haulers (the Empire Builder was a major part of the ExpressTrak business) and that needs to be included. The stillborn Skyline Connection doomed the Lake Country Limited and the Kentucky Cardinal. Sources on that have always been a little hard to come by. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Waterbury and Milldale Tramway you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Waterbury and Milldale Tramway for comments about the article, and Talk:Waterbury and Milldale Tramway/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 21:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Medway Branch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Medway Branch for comments about the article, and Talk:Medway Branch/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 Golden -- Golden ( talk) 16:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Click on 'cite', and you'll see

Barbee, G, & Westreich, P. "NS 999 Electric Switcher Update." Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Rail Transportation Division Fall Technical Conference. ASME 2013 Rail Transportation Division Fall Technical Conference. Altoona, Pennsylvania, USA. October 15–17, 2013. V001T01A005. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/RTDF2013-4708

Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Headbomb: "Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Rail Transportation Division Fall Technical Conference" and "ASME 2013 Rail Transportation Division Fall Technical Conference" appear to be two separate citation fields, not a single field. The BibTeX output looks like this, for example:

@proceedings{10.1115/RTDF2013-4708,
author = {Barbee, Gibson and Westreich, Philippe},
title = "{NS 999 Electric Switcher Update}",
volume = {ASME 2013 Rail Transportation Division Fall Technical Conference},
series = {Rail Transportation Division Conference} Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 08:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Pi.1415926535,

I just spent a fair amount of time updating this article: Mass Central Rail Trail, especially the Berlin-Boston sections. It would be great if this article could have a map, however I'm clueless about adding maps to Wikipedia. The official map is fantastic: Mass Trail Tracker but of course it's not in Wikipedia format.

You seem to have interest in this area. Is this something you would be willing/able to help adding? Thank you! Rocketwidget ( talk) 17:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Rocketwidget: Thanks for reaching out - I've been noticing the good work you've been doing on the article. I'm willing to help with a map, though I can't commit to any specific timeframe. For a map, there are two possibilities. The simpler one would be a simple one-color line map like the one in the lede of Central Massachusetts Railroad. That wouldn't show the status of each section, but wouldn't need to be updated when sections open. More time-consuming would be an SVG map like File:MBTA Commuter Rail and funding district map.svg that shows status of each segment and likely town lines as well. More detail, but would need to be updated when the status of a section changes.

Either one would need to start with the actual geographic data of where the trail goes. I would recommend reaching out to the creator of the Mass Trail Tracker map and see if they're willing to share the data. (That would probably be either a shapefile, GeoJSON, or KML file, any of which I'm able to work with.) If they are, it would greatly decrease the time for me to make either type of map. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 18:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Pi.1415926535 Fantastic thank you! I have reached out by email and I will let you know if I hear anything. Rocketwidget ( talk) 21:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I've been asked to withdraw the map request. thanks anyways! Rocketwidget ( talk) 23:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, I do understand that you needed to remove my image due to the format error but once more information like a paragraph or more about the station is added, can I add it back if possible or not? RobloxUser4125 ( talk) 12:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ RobloxUser4125: Yes, that is correct. Because the article has an infobox, there's not enough space / no need for an additional image in the prose until it's 3-4 paragraphs long (and preferably sectioned as well). Melrose Highlands station is a good example of how that should long. Additionally, you should never put an image at the end of the prose section (i.e. just before the references), as this will always cause bad formatting. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 04:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Alright, thanks. I will add the image once there is sufficent space to allow such a thing. RobloxUser4125 ( talk) 15:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey Pi,

I wanted to ask if you have any sources about the Seekonk Branch Railroad. I was able to find this report by the Massachusetts legislature which goes a long way, but ideally I'd like to find a bit more to sustain a full article. I've found some coverage in newspapers, both contemporary and later in the 1800s, but nothing in recent scholarship and literature. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Trainsandotherthings: Unfortunately I don't have anything useful to give you. It's not even mentioned in any of my print sources; Ozog (who's absolutely an expert, but unfortunately difficult to cite) has the most I've seen. As far as I can tell, the only tracks the company actually built were from the India Point bridge to Bold Point - all of a third of a mile. Even with your research skills, I doubt there's enough out there to make a separate article. A paragraph or two on the East Junction Branch article is probably perfect. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 03:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, if between the two of us that's all that we can find, I'm in agreement that there isn't enough for a full article and it will have to be a section on the East Junction Branch article. A shame, because I think it's a very interesting topic that arguably set the precedent that railroads in the U.S. would not act like toll roads or canals. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 00:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Trainsandotherthings: A bit more about it here. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 04:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Worldcat has 45 hits related to the corporate term, but they're all related to legal controversies in the 1830s and the latest is 1839. None of it is archival either. The Internet Archive did turn up a few more recent works that might be helpful (particularly Handlin and Salsbury): [11]. Still may not be enough. Mackensen (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Halsted Street and Archer Avenue is where the body was found on the tracks, that is also the location of Halsted Street station (Heritage Corridor). PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 22:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ PaulGamerBoy360: That doesn't mean it has any relevance to the Heritage Corridor station, given that it does not mention the station whatsoever. Please stop adding citations that do not directly discuss this particular station. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

On 18 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Medway Branch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Medway Branch was made redundant just nine years after its opening by the construction of the Charles River Railroad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Medway Branch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Medway Branch), 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.

Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Just sharing this since I notice you are interesting in open questions with regard to MBTA topics. For BU West, there was the faded public art [12] at the station that got demolished and not replaced as part of the renovation. At the time, some people I know found this and other signage from the station in a nearby dumpster. The art was not rescued as it was extremely large. So it is definitely in a landfill. Just wanted to leave this here so someone else knows. I have no source so it couldn't go on a wiki page. ForksForks ( talk) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ ForksForks: That's very disappointing to hear, but I very much appreciate you letting me know! Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 17:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I made some edits to the Richmond Main Street Station page, with references and external links to support the information. My edits were quickly deleted more than once. The information is accurate and relevant to the Main Street Station and the Staples Mill Station that it connects to it. The increased rail traffic being directed to the Main Street Station by way of Staples Mill directly impacts the Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground. The track was constructed on the largest African Burying Ground in the United States. The current plans for the DC2RVA highspeed rail which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article (and the East-west Commonwealth Corridor) will directly impact the burial ground. This information is backed up by the approved National Register Nomination for the Shockoe Hill Burying Ground Historic District, published letters from the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources, scholarly articles, online news, and numerous newspaper articles. Full references, and links to the information were provided along with the edits. Section 106 for the DC2RVA highspeed rail project has now been reopened, specifically regarding the adverse effects that the current plan of running trains between the two stations (Main St. and Staples Mill) will cause this burial ground. This information is relevant. Omitting truthful information from an article, keeping the truth hidden regarding the harm that a planned project will cause is not being neutral. Below are the links to the letters from the Federal Railroad Administration and the Department of Historic Resources, along with the link to the nomination.

https://vapassengerrailauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/DC2RVA-S106-Re-Initiation-01202023.pdf

https://vapassengerrailauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/DHR-Response.pdf

https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/127-7231/

2nd ABG ( talk) 20:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ

• ( talk page stalker) Coming out the gate and accusing an editor of editing non-neutrally isn't the best approach; please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The editor questioned the direct relevance of your edits to Richmond Main Street Station, as opposed to Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground and Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, and that's a reasonable position. You should explain on Talk:Richmond Main Street Station why the material you added should be included there, as opposed to other articles. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2nd ABG, there are several closely related issues with your edits:

• As I expressed in my reverts, your edits were not directly related to the station. While the DC2RVA project is proposed to add service to Main Street Station, it's a much larger project. It perhaps needs a few paragraphs in the article about the station. The non-rail effects of the project are two steps removed from the subject of the station. They don't need to be mentioned in the station article unless they are specifically associated with the station (rather than the project as a whole) and widely reported, and even then a sentence or two at most would be appropriate. Adding several paragraphs about the burial ground to the station article is undue weight and doesn't serve our readers.
• Much of what you added was completely unsourced. All material added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable from reliable sources per WP:V. Exceptional claims, such as your claim that the DEIS "minimized, and misrepresented" the burial site, requires exceptional sourcing. (Reopening the Section 106 consultation is standard when a nearby property is added to the NRHP, and doesn't indicate any such omission in the DEIS.)
• While you added citations for some of what you wrote, they don't actually support the claims. For example, none of the three sources support your claim of "great adverse effects" on the cemetery site. They only mention "adverse effects" and discuss plans to mitigate or outright avoid those impacts – a much more mundane and common situation. Mitigation of adverse effects is a standard part of projects like this, and the vast majority of it ends up only needing to be very minor in scope.

I understand this is an issue that is important to you. I have no interest in "keeping the truth hidden" about anything. However, I have a great degree of interest in ensuring that Wikipedia's coverage of the truth is as faithful to the available sources as possible, and is on the articles that it's directly relevant to.

Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Was this deletion of my addition done in good faith? If is was, then I apologize for the acquisition. It is hard to see the difference when my edits are immediately deleted as soon as they are published. I just included another edit or addition to the article, completely sourced, and it too was immediately deleted. By immediately, I mean within just moments of publishing. The edits were all sourced, yet being immediately deleted as soon as the were added article. The burial ground is directly related to Main Street Station. The tracks constructed by the Seaboard Airline in 1900 directly to the Main Street station were built upon this burial ground. The same track which connects Richmond Main St. Station and the Staples Mill Road Station runs directly upon this burial ground. Any and all trains that run between the two stations operate on this burial ground. All trains that are planned between these two stations are planned to run on tracks that were constructed upon this burial ground. It is not just the DC2RVA high-speed rail project, but also the proposed east-west Commonwealth Corridor, the newly proposed RVA757 Connector, and the 6 Amtrak passenger trains that were added since 2021 and currently run upon this same track through this burial ground. Additionally the 11 million dollar Mellon Grant that was recently awarded by the Mellon Foundation to include an interpretive center in the Main Street Station Train Shed is planned to include the history of this burial ground. All increases in service to and from the Main Street Station through Staples Mill Road directly effect this burial ground. There is a direct correlation to the Main Street station and the Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground.

I included links to the National Register of Historic Places for the Shockoe Hill Burying Ground Historic District, the newly revised memorandum of agreement for the DC2RVA high-speed rail project, the letter of adverse effect from the FRA, the letter of concurrence from DHR. Plus there are numerous supporting articles. It would seem that none of this information was considered before deletion, as it could not have been reviewed in the few moments between my publishing and the immediate deletion of the information from the article. 2nd ABG ( talk) 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The letter from the FRA does show that the would be adverse effects to the burial ground. 2nd ABG ( talk) 19:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The train track runs through the distance of 5 1/2 blocks through the burial ground from 2nd St. to past 7th St. The work would include digging and the construction of retaining walls, in addition to the necessary connected road work along Hospital St., and 7th St. which all exists in the burial ground. 2nd ABG ( talk) 19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad 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 TwoScars -- TwoScars ( talk) 20:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm about ready to pass this as GA. I'm just checking with the AAR to make sure I know how leases work. I always thought that if a railroad had a long-term lease for a large segment of rail line, that it would be the operator instead of the owner. The AAR itself probably does not ever get involved with leases, but there might be ex-railroaders there who are familiar with leases from their time working for a railroad. It is possible that each lease works different, depending on the details of the agreement. Hopefully I will get a response today or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. TwoScars ( talk) 16:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I passed the article as GA. I made two changes, outlined in the review, to clarify the railroad vs the rail line vs the operator of the line. Sorry for all the minor issues. Here is a link to my Library. If you scroll way down, you will find a section called "Railroad sources". You are welcome to use them, or copy them to one of your User pages. I recently added a few. The ICC Statistics of Railways should be useful for someone that writes often about railroads. I wish I had more of the Poor's Manual of Railroads, but I only have two. Good luck in your future railroad endeavors. TwoScars ( talk) 19:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad for comments about the article, and Talk:Newburgh, Dutchess 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 TwoScars -- TwoScars ( talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm working up some changes to the MBTA icons; the idea being to use actual icons instead of colored text. Changes are visible at Template:Rail-interchange/testcases#Boston (12 November 2023 - testing). Your thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Mackensen: I definitely like how it looks for the subway lines etc. For commuter rail, it may be best to still have a text version available; otherwise, templates like Template:Providence/Stoughton Line will have identical icons linking to multiple different lines. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I think one solution there is you use {{ ric}} with the optional name argument, or just use uncolored text. Example of the former: Framingham/​Worcester Line. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Do you think there's any chance our DE IP from down under might be Andrewl1995? Pbritti ( talk) 16:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) I don't think so - Andrewl1995 showed no interest in diesel locomotives, only steam locomotives. There's also some editing of video game articles, whereas the current IP editor has a hyperfixation on Southern Pacific locomotives, steam and diesel. It's also very unlikely Andrewl would be able to go this far without all-caps explosive tirades. An IP showed up and removed things on Andrewl's talk page, and geolocated to Washington state. That IP range [13] was also blocked for a year in August. Putting the pieces together, I find it very unlikely we are dealing with the same editor here, but I can't 100% rule it out. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm going to defer to TAOT's appraisal, then. Wasn't aware of the Washington state IP, which helps seal it for me that this isn't the same editor. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, this seems like a different character. Andrew was apparently sending nasty emails as recently as September, whereas this IP thankfully is just a really bad liar. Pbritti, I very much appreciate your assistance with this case. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 23:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

You're pretty good at finding timetables, any chance you could find one for the stations on the East Junction Branch? My sources seem to disagree with each other, and I can't find a source for the milepost of the Narragansett Park station. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 23:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Trainsandotherthings: I don't know of any that give more information that the 1899 that Ozog has. Timetables as we know them didn't really exist in the years of its original use, and the earliest I've got in my collection is 1915. The best I can offer you is my 1963 ETT (cited here, same page), which gives the following:

• East Junction 0.00
• Daggetts 3.52 (I suspect this is a typo and should be 3.02)
• Slater 3.74
• Rumford 5.42
• Red Bridge 6.88
• S.S. K-315 7.27
• Water Street 7.30
• Narragansett Park 3.90 (Mileage between Narragansett Park and Slater 0.36)

Narragansett Park was on a short spur off the East Junction Branch, with a surprisingly large station next to the racetrack.

It looks like there was a 1991 Shoreliner issue with a few pages about the racetrack trains ( see here) and a more recent issue about Providence in general (last item here). If you're planning to take it to GA, it might be worth contacting them to see if they've got a relevant timetable in their collections. RR Enthusiasts of New England or the Dodd collection at UConn might also be worth reaching out. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 05:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Karr actually substantiates Daggetts being at MP 3.5, he also has Perrin's at 2, Slater at 4, Rumford at 5, East Providence at 7, and Fox Point at 7.5. Between the timetable and Karr I think I have enough to make a proper station listing. Thanks for the help.

By the way, a higher quality resource for aerial photos, at least for Rhode Island, is accessible at [14]. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 00:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

On 29 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the directors of the Dutchess and Columbia Railroad stole back the railroad from a bankrupt lessee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad), 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Would you perhaps have any sources for the type 7 LRV, moreso pertaining to its earlier history, circa around 1980-1990? I'm writing an article for it at Draft:MBTA Kinki Sharyo Type 7, and am hoping to find a few more sources for its earlier time, and to hopefully get it published to match the MBTA AnsaldoBreda Type 8 page that also exists. Thanks,

Archangelectra ( talk) 13:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Archangelectra: I have access to Boston Globe archives through WP:LIBRARY if there's anything specific you'd like me to look up. Other than that, none of my sources have any details beyond what's currently in your draft. Do also note that MBTA annual reports up through 1987 are available on Archive.org.

In all honesty, I'm not sure whether it's best to have separate articles on each Green Line rolling stock type, or just to summarize them in the Green Line article. (The Type 8 article is pretty thin on sources.) If you do keep working on the draft, there's a lot of grammar issues you'll need to address, and the GLTPS paragraph should be removed since it's about the Green Line as a whole and not the Type 7s specifically. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 23:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, I saw you reverted my edit on Assembly. Question: First, I may be missing it but where is this RfC? Second, Oak Grove station, Malden Center station, Sullivan Square station, and Community College station all include similar wikitext based station layouts - so I am unsure of the motivation to remove this information from the Assembly article. Let me know what you think! Eteethan ( talk) 07:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Eteethan: Thanks for reaching out. There's a longstanding consensus not to include station diagrams for simple stations such as these. The most recent RFC is here; while there were a variety of opinions, I think the general consensus is clear. The diagrams have significant downsides (they're an accessibility nightmare, and they take up a lot of room), so my rule of thumb is that the layout diagrams are only worthwhile if they provide additional clarity for the prose or clarify unusual service patterns. You're welcome to remove the diagrams from the other stations if you desire. For these stations, the layout diagrams don't add any information that's not already covered by prose and the services template in the infobox. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Precious

Three years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi. Why did you revert this edit? It was not my edit, but it looks reasonable to me. jhawkinson ( talk) 09:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jhawkinson: Multiple maps in the infobox aren't useful; there's no reason to have the static map and mapframe together, and it takes up a lot of space. You're welcome to add back the mapframe. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Okay, so that does not justify failing to use an edit summary. Please use an edit summary, it makes other editors lives much much easier! You say, "Multiple maps in the infobox aren't useful," but…citation needed! In this case, it seems obvious to me that both maps are useful — one to tell travelers where the heck Yonkers is in New York State, and one to tell readers where in Yonkers the Amtrak station is. Maybe there are good reasons why both need not be there, but it's not because there is not a utility. I'll revert your reversion. jhawkinson ( talk) 03:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jhawkinson: I firmly disagree. There is no situation in which we need three different ways of viewing a station's location (including the coordinates map) in a single infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Having multiple maps in the infobox is contrary to that basic guideline, especially since the static map adds a third to half of a screen height. If there is some compelling reason to have both static and mapframe maps in an article, you can use a switch akin to that in Yellow Line (BART), but I do not believe that is justified here. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 04:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Sure, you're entitled to disagree. But it's not objectively true that they "aren't useful." I see a use for them, and it sure makes sense to me here (but again, I didn't make the edit). I think the question is whether the utility gained is worth the complexity in presentation, and reasonable people can disagree. I don't have confidence that my perceived preference here is correct, but again, it's clear there is merit to both sides, and it's not OK to dismiss the argument high-handedly or revert another editor's work without explanation. Thanks, and Happy New Year! jhawkinson ( talk) 04:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Wow, rude!. The article has a talk page. jhawkinson ( talk) 04:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jhawkinson: I didn't mean to be rude. I think it is a reasonable reversion to the status quo prior to the disagreement on which maps to use. Until the IP's flurry of no-edit-summary additions, I don't know of any station articles that used both map types; I've never seen it among the ~2,300 station articles on my watchlist. Given that, the onus is on you (or the IP) to make the case for the addition. Given that the discussion would be relevant to every station article, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations would be the correct place for you to start the discussion. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 04:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply