This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from September 2017 (the end of Archive 8) to May 2018. 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.
Hello! I know you are an experienced member on Wikipedia and specifically with articles relating to the MBTA, so I thought I would ask you this.
As you may know, the article for the MBTA is very long, and the article for the History of the MBTA is lacking in some sections, so I started to create a new article called Draft:Proposed expansion of the MBTA subway (similar to the NYC subway article Proposed expansion of the New York City Subway). I created the draft to write in extreme detail about the former and current proposed expansions of Boston's subway, as most of this info is missing from the history page. I planned on populating the page with templates, images, and other elements to add info to the page. I took a hiatus from the page because I feared that it would be deleted when I was finished, so I decided to ask you. Do you think the page should be finished and kept, deleted, or info from the page should be added to the History page?
Thanks, Anthonyt31201
Anthonyt31201 ( talk) 22:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have deprodded Lynette Sweet because it was discussed at AFD back in 2011 and is therefore ineligible for prod. I have no prejudice against you opening another AFD if you are so inclined. Thanks, — KuyaBriBri Talk 15:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hia, sorry about my image upload failures honest mistake there but I feel like the infobox image for Ruggles should be an easily recognizable image of Ruggles, not a train that could be anywhere from the common outsider perspective... How do you feel about maybe this one? (note I did not take this one and it is several years old, IV is still under construction and the station lighting has changed slightly but overall it's pretty much the same) If not, I can always go take a couple more, I can grab my DSLR and take some basically any day, must walk through here at least 4 times a day :) Thanks! EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 18:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ EoRdE6: No worries about the image! Copyright can definitely be confusing, especially when things are posted publicly. Hopefully a source with the updated schedule will be available on the web soon.
- I'm biased towards pictures that actually show trains, but I do see your point about preferring an image that's obviously of the specific station. The image you've suggested (or even better, if you want to take an updated version with your obviously highly-quality camera) would be acceptable. Once I get around to lengthening the article, there will be more room for a variety of pictures.
- I hope you didn't take my edits to imply that I object to your pictures in general - they're overall great. The narrowness of infoboxes, unfortunately, means that large-scale images with lots of fine detail - like your panorama - end up not being very clear. But it's a valuable addition to the historical record of Commons. Will you be able to take occasional photos during the new platform construction? I'm unfortunately on the west coast now, and only able to take occasional trips to Boston. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'll head out on a slightly sunnier day than the horrible one we just had and take a few sure, and yep I'll definitely get several of the platform progress whenever they actually bother to get that going (I'm assuming it will be soon given the sign is up now...) with the new Northeastern bridge going up everything surrounding Ruggles seems to just be construction now... EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 05:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
In reverting my move at Ashmont–Mattapan high-speed line you stated it was "contrary to previous move discussions". I had looked, and didn't find any prior discussion of caps or hyphen there. Did I miss something? Sources are all over the map, so it makes sense to follow our own MOS's advice here, no? Dicklyon ( talk) 16:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- You're missing a whole lot, notably respect for what other editors say. The previous move discussion clearly established that a consensus is needed as to what the article should be named before any move discussion should take place. Yet you made no attempt of any discussion before moving the page, which indicates you think your opinions override those of the community.
- Second, you managed to move the page to a name that absolutely no sources use. Not all sources use "High[-]Speed Line", but those that do always use the capitalized form. This is yet another occurrence of your persistent refusal to understand that both named services and named railway lines in the US are proper nouns and are thus capitalized in correct usage.
- Third, you clearly lack the knowledge to be editing these pages. Not only did you use a wholly incorrect name for this line, but also for the Cambridge-Dorchester Line (more correctly, Cambridge-Dorchester Tunnel, which actually referred to the service as well as the physical line). That indicates to me that you know nothing about what you are editing, but are merely (and incorrectly) applying the MOS blindly.
- I don't have any interest in discussing this here; you've been told all of this over and over. At this point, this message is simply evidence for AN/I.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- So now you've unilaterally picked yet another variant, with the hyphen in the capped version. It's pretty rare to hyphenate with proper names that way, but I see at least one books does if you drop Ashton. Similarly, if you drop Ashton, you find sources with the lowercase hyphenated version, as in Fodor's. Actually, with the Ashton, too, as here and here. Actually, 3 of the first 10 book hits do it exactly as I had it, and none like you did. Given that caps are far from ubiquitous in sources it seemed sensible to follow the MOS and go with lowercase. The only previous discussion was about changing to a completely different name, unrelated to these routine style issues. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! TITANO SAURUS 18:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I know you are probably very busy like most of us, but I was wondering if you could help add to the New Haven–Springfield Shuttle and New Haven–Springfield Line articles, especially about earlier history, or to let me know what I could do to improve the article. Thanks in advance! Daybeers ( talk) 06:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- They're definitely on my hit list (including separating out Inland Route service details that more properly belong as a subsection on Northeast Regional, and I have a zillion bookmarks for them. (I also have a number of recent photos to upload). The line should be fairly straightforward as far as history and service details go, the Shuttle has a tangled history that won't be easy to weave. I can't promise how soon I'll get to them - knowing me, not till right before Hartford Line service begins - but I wish you luck now and I'll give you a ping when I do get to them. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Brockton (MBTA station)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Brockton (MBTA 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
Legobot, on behalf of
SNUGGUMS --
SNUGGUMS (
talk) 21:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Brockton (MBTA station)
The article
Brockton (MBTA station) you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Brockton (MBTA station) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
SNUGGUMS --
SNUGGUMS (
talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Brockton (MBTA station)
The article
Brockton (MBTA station) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Brockton (MBTA station) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
SNUGGUMS --
SNUGGUMS (
talk) 00:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Wickford Junction station
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Wickford Junction 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
Legobot, on behalf of
Epicgenius --
Epicgenius (
talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Wickford Junction station
The article
Wickford Junction station you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Wickford Junction station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Epicgenius --
Epicgenius (
talk) 22:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
On 4 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brockton (MBTA station), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a modern bus station was built to resemble the former Brockton train station, designed by Bradford Gilbert? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brockton (MBTA station). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Brockton (MBTA station)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| It's a crying shame that there doesn't appear to be a transit/rail oriented barnstar (having looked for one), so please accept this colorful one instead, for your long and fine work in MBTA-oriented articles. Ravenswing 20:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC) |
- @ Ravenswing: Thank you very much! I'm mostly based out of SF these days, but I try to keep up with MBTA stuff as best I can. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Not to sound derogatory or anything (I know I can't not sound so, but hopefully you get the point), but Olsen24's block expires in less than 24 hours. We should be prepared for Olsen24 to start making unnecessary changes to MTA bus fleet-related articles. Once again, not to rip on Olsen24, but after all these blocks, I don't have much faith in Olsen24 contributing positively to these articles. Mtattrain ( talk) 15:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
How is this table uncited? it came directly from the select bus page. Olsen24 ( talk) 15:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @ Olsen24: You did not add a single citation to a reliable source. Immediately upon your block expiring, you come back and make exactly the kind of edits against consensus - adding your own images even when they are inferior quality, and adding unsourced information - that got you blocked in the first place. You do realize that this will make your next - and permanent - block come quickly, right? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 15:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand about the table being uncited and will not re add it, however there was no clear consensus against my images. Infact, another user slowly started to faze them out almost as a personal attack, however, i could be wrong about that but that's how it seems.
Olsen24 (
talk) 19:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, as has been explained to you numerous times by multiple editors, the images you are adding are often of inferior quality. For example, you keep replacing this well-framed and well-lit image with your dimly lit and poorly framed image. There is no possible reason for you to do so. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand about the table being uncited and will not re add it, however there was no clear consensus against my images. Infact, another user slowly started to faze them out almost as a personal attack, however, i could be wrong about that but that's how it seems.
Olsen24 (
talk) 19:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- That may be true for some of the images suggested, which can be switched back. But some of the replacements are outdated, too distant and grainy. Concerns that have been used against me. Also, may I add, that my images could be reverted individually instead of a specific image has a quality image but they are all reverted without reason (except for the example you gave above.) Olsen24 ( talk) 20:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to inform you that the specific example you gave was changed back to the image which was brighter. Any other issues please don't hesitate to message me.
Olsen24 (
talk) 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, you clearly have no idea what images are appropriate for an article. Every single image that you have changed since your block expired was a poor choice. Many of your images are so poorly cropped that they don't show the entire bus! There is nothing wrong with images that are a year or three old - the best image, not the most recent should be used. (Note that the good article EMD AEM-7 and featured article Superliner (railcar), for example, use 1980s images of high visual quality.)
- I would like to inform you that the specific example you gave was changed back to the image which was brighter. Any other issues please don't hesitate to message me.
Olsen24 (
talk) 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @ NeilN: fresh off two month-long blocks, and he's immediately back to the exact same behavior that got him blocked. How much more of this game do we have to play before he gets indeffed? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Pi! I'm wondering if you could help me out with a possible idea I had to propose renaming some of the LIRR station articles. I really don't know much about the LIRR, but I came across an article and noticed that nearly all of the station articles are titled "xxx (LIRR station)". This also applies to the former stations. That disambiguation is deprecated per WP:USSTATION, right? I know the LIRR is a very old railroad, so I don't know if there are any articles which should have the disambiguation, even if there aren't any articles with the same name, but shouldn't the ones without that problem be changed to just "xxx station"? Judging by this page, I was thinking of putting the notice on either the Jamaica or Penn Station article, since they have the most views and watchers. What are your thoughts? I could be totally off base and this might actually be a terrible idea in reality, please tell me if you think so! Thanks in advance! Best, Daybeers ( talk) 02:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Correct, USSTATION should be applied to all of the articles. You'll get objections from the usual suspects (mostly DanTD claiming you're ruining everything and threatening to quit WikiProject Trains for the 87th time), but it's an obvious and useful set of moves. I would place the move notice on Jamaica - Penn Station will not need to be moved. Good luck, and let me know when you do it!
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 05:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Haha okay thanks! I actually decided to post the discussion on WP:USSTATION at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#LIRR station naming convention since there are 129 current stations and 147 former stations. I thought that was a little too big for a requested move. – Daybeers ( talk) 06:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Called it.
Mackensen
(talk) 12:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yup, I've seen this guy around a bit, but I've decided debate his strange views at the LIRR station requested move. Feel free to chime in if you'd like haha! – Daybeers ( talk) 04:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm working through the template issues highlighted at WP:TWP and find that I can't remove {{ infobox rdt}} from Grand Trunk station (Richmond) because {{ St. Lawrence and Atlantic line map}}. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Never mind; the code that handles route_map in infobox station is terrible. I'm working on it in the sandbox. Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Good luck - all of the code surrounding RDTs continues to baffle me. This does remind me that all the Grand Trunk Station (XXX) articles need a mass rename... Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Testing out an idea with services on Capital Beltway station and would be interested in your feedback. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm. I definitely like the general concept to deal with the old mess of service names. (How many other stations will need it? Rye is the only one that comes to mind.) I would suggest some changes:
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 03:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Only use it for the mass of named trains that preceeded the current Northeast Regional; the LD trains, Metroliners, and the oddball Chesapeake and Beacon Hill are all different classes of service and should get their own s-rail rows
- Have it say "Northeast Corridor services" and possibly link to the history section of the Northeast Regional article
- All good points. There's something to be said for collapsing all the individual services on the Northeast Corridor, though I doubt I could persuade many people.
Mackensen
(talk) 11:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- I could be convinced to collapse the LD services where they all make identical stops, but I think it's important to have separate rows for the different types of stopping services. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Amtrak paint schemes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Amtrak paint schemes 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
Legobot, on behalf of
Spinningspark --
Spinningspark (
talk) 08:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you please respect my request not to use graphic tick marks. It interferes with my own use of symbols to track issues I consider dealt with. Spinning Spark 09:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @ SpinningSpark: My apologies - I made sure not to strike anything, but missed the tick marks. I've removed them. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Amtrak paint schemes
The article
Amtrak paint schemes you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Amtrak paint schemes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Spinningspark --
Spinningspark (
talk) 07:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For fighting the good fight at Amtrak paint schemes and turning it into a Good article. Truly impressive! Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC) |
This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from September 2017 (the end of Archive 8) to May 2018. 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.
Hello! I know you are an experienced member on Wikipedia and specifically with articles relating to the MBTA, so I thought I would ask you this.
As you may know, the article for the MBTA is very long, and the article for the History of the MBTA is lacking in some sections, so I started to create a new article called Draft:Proposed expansion of the MBTA subway (similar to the NYC subway article Proposed expansion of the New York City Subway). I created the draft to write in extreme detail about the former and current proposed expansions of Boston's subway, as most of this info is missing from the history page. I planned on populating the page with templates, images, and other elements to add info to the page. I took a hiatus from the page because I feared that it would be deleted when I was finished, so I decided to ask you. Do you think the page should be finished and kept, deleted, or info from the page should be added to the History page?
Thanks, Anthonyt31201
Anthonyt31201 ( talk) 22:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have deprodded Lynette Sweet because it was discussed at AFD back in 2011 and is therefore ineligible for prod. I have no prejudice against you opening another AFD if you are so inclined. Thanks, — KuyaBriBri Talk 15:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hia, sorry about my image upload failures honest mistake there but I feel like the infobox image for Ruggles should be an easily recognizable image of Ruggles, not a train that could be anywhere from the common outsider perspective... How do you feel about maybe this one? (note I did not take this one and it is several years old, IV is still under construction and the station lighting has changed slightly but overall it's pretty much the same) If not, I can always go take a couple more, I can grab my DSLR and take some basically any day, must walk through here at least 4 times a day :) Thanks! EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 18:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ EoRdE6: No worries about the image! Copyright can definitely be confusing, especially when things are posted publicly. Hopefully a source with the updated schedule will be available on the web soon.
- I'm biased towards pictures that actually show trains, but I do see your point about preferring an image that's obviously of the specific station. The image you've suggested (or even better, if you want to take an updated version with your obviously highly-quality camera) would be acceptable. Once I get around to lengthening the article, there will be more room for a variety of pictures.
- I hope you didn't take my edits to imply that I object to your pictures in general - they're overall great. The narrowness of infoboxes, unfortunately, means that large-scale images with lots of fine detail - like your panorama - end up not being very clear. But it's a valuable addition to the historical record of Commons. Will you be able to take occasional photos during the new platform construction? I'm unfortunately on the west coast now, and only able to take occasional trips to Boston. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'll head out on a slightly sunnier day than the horrible one we just had and take a few sure, and yep I'll definitely get several of the platform progress whenever they actually bother to get that going (I'm assuming it will be soon given the sign is up now...) with the new Northeastern bridge going up everything surrounding Ruggles seems to just be construction now... EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 05:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
In reverting my move at Ashmont–Mattapan high-speed line you stated it was "contrary to previous move discussions". I had looked, and didn't find any prior discussion of caps or hyphen there. Did I miss something? Sources are all over the map, so it makes sense to follow our own MOS's advice here, no? Dicklyon ( talk) 16:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- You're missing a whole lot, notably respect for what other editors say. The previous move discussion clearly established that a consensus is needed as to what the article should be named before any move discussion should take place. Yet you made no attempt of any discussion before moving the page, which indicates you think your opinions override those of the community.
- Second, you managed to move the page to a name that absolutely no sources use. Not all sources use "High[-]Speed Line", but those that do always use the capitalized form. This is yet another occurrence of your persistent refusal to understand that both named services and named railway lines in the US are proper nouns and are thus capitalized in correct usage.
- Third, you clearly lack the knowledge to be editing these pages. Not only did you use a wholly incorrect name for this line, but also for the Cambridge-Dorchester Line (more correctly, Cambridge-Dorchester Tunnel, which actually referred to the service as well as the physical line). That indicates to me that you know nothing about what you are editing, but are merely (and incorrectly) applying the MOS blindly.
- I don't have any interest in discussing this here; you've been told all of this over and over. At this point, this message is simply evidence for AN/I.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- So now you've unilaterally picked yet another variant, with the hyphen in the capped version. It's pretty rare to hyphenate with proper names that way, but I see at least one books does if you drop Ashton. Similarly, if you drop Ashton, you find sources with the lowercase hyphenated version, as in Fodor's. Actually, with the Ashton, too, as here and here. Actually, 3 of the first 10 book hits do it exactly as I had it, and none like you did. Given that caps are far from ubiquitous in sources it seemed sensible to follow the MOS and go with lowercase. The only previous discussion was about changing to a completely different name, unrelated to these routine style issues. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! TITANO SAURUS 18:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I know you are probably very busy like most of us, but I was wondering if you could help add to the New Haven–Springfield Shuttle and New Haven–Springfield Line articles, especially about earlier history, or to let me know what I could do to improve the article. Thanks in advance! Daybeers ( talk) 06:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- They're definitely on my hit list (including separating out Inland Route service details that more properly belong as a subsection on Northeast Regional, and I have a zillion bookmarks for them. (I also have a number of recent photos to upload). The line should be fairly straightforward as far as history and service details go, the Shuttle has a tangled history that won't be easy to weave. I can't promise how soon I'll get to them - knowing me, not till right before Hartford Line service begins - but I wish you luck now and I'll give you a ping when I do get to them. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Brockton (MBTA station)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Brockton (MBTA 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
Legobot, on behalf of
SNUGGUMS --
SNUGGUMS (
talk) 21:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Brockton (MBTA station)
The article
Brockton (MBTA station) you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Brockton (MBTA station) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
SNUGGUMS --
SNUGGUMS (
talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Brockton (MBTA station)
The article
Brockton (MBTA station) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Brockton (MBTA station) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
SNUGGUMS --
SNUGGUMS (
talk) 00:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Wickford Junction station
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Wickford Junction 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
Legobot, on behalf of
Epicgenius --
Epicgenius (
talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Wickford Junction station
The article
Wickford Junction station you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Wickford Junction station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Epicgenius --
Epicgenius (
talk) 22:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
On 4 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brockton (MBTA station), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a modern bus station was built to resemble the former Brockton train station, designed by Bradford Gilbert? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brockton (MBTA station). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Brockton (MBTA station)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
|
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| It's a crying shame that there doesn't appear to be a transit/rail oriented barnstar (having looked for one), so please accept this colorful one instead, for your long and fine work in MBTA-oriented articles. Ravenswing 20:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC) |
- @ Ravenswing: Thank you very much! I'm mostly based out of SF these days, but I try to keep up with MBTA stuff as best I can. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Not to sound derogatory or anything (I know I can't not sound so, but hopefully you get the point), but Olsen24's block expires in less than 24 hours. We should be prepared for Olsen24 to start making unnecessary changes to MTA bus fleet-related articles. Once again, not to rip on Olsen24, but after all these blocks, I don't have much faith in Olsen24 contributing positively to these articles. Mtattrain ( talk) 15:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
How is this table uncited? it came directly from the select bus page. Olsen24 ( talk) 15:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @ Olsen24: You did not add a single citation to a reliable source. Immediately upon your block expiring, you come back and make exactly the kind of edits against consensus - adding your own images even when they are inferior quality, and adding unsourced information - that got you blocked in the first place. You do realize that this will make your next - and permanent - block come quickly, right? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 15:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand about the table being uncited and will not re add it, however there was no clear consensus against my images. Infact, another user slowly started to faze them out almost as a personal attack, however, i could be wrong about that but that's how it seems.
Olsen24 (
talk) 19:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, as has been explained to you numerous times by multiple editors, the images you are adding are often of inferior quality. For example, you keep replacing this well-framed and well-lit image with your dimly lit and poorly framed image. There is no possible reason for you to do so. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand about the table being uncited and will not re add it, however there was no clear consensus against my images. Infact, another user slowly started to faze them out almost as a personal attack, however, i could be wrong about that but that's how it seems.
Olsen24 (
talk) 19:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- That may be true for some of the images suggested, which can be switched back. But some of the replacements are outdated, too distant and grainy. Concerns that have been used against me. Also, may I add, that my images could be reverted individually instead of a specific image has a quality image but they are all reverted without reason (except for the example you gave above.) Olsen24 ( talk) 20:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to inform you that the specific example you gave was changed back to the image which was brighter. Any other issues please don't hesitate to message me.
Olsen24 (
talk) 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, you clearly have no idea what images are appropriate for an article. Every single image that you have changed since your block expired was a poor choice. Many of your images are so poorly cropped that they don't show the entire bus! There is nothing wrong with images that are a year or three old - the best image, not the most recent should be used. (Note that the good article EMD AEM-7 and featured article Superliner (railcar), for example, use 1980s images of high visual quality.)
- I would like to inform you that the specific example you gave was changed back to the image which was brighter. Any other issues please don't hesitate to message me.
Olsen24 (
talk) 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @ NeilN: fresh off two month-long blocks, and he's immediately back to the exact same behavior that got him blocked. How much more of this game do we have to play before he gets indeffed? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Pi! I'm wondering if you could help me out with a possible idea I had to propose renaming some of the LIRR station articles. I really don't know much about the LIRR, but I came across an article and noticed that nearly all of the station articles are titled "xxx (LIRR station)". This also applies to the former stations. That disambiguation is deprecated per WP:USSTATION, right? I know the LIRR is a very old railroad, so I don't know if there are any articles which should have the disambiguation, even if there aren't any articles with the same name, but shouldn't the ones without that problem be changed to just "xxx station"? Judging by this page, I was thinking of putting the notice on either the Jamaica or Penn Station article, since they have the most views and watchers. What are your thoughts? I could be totally off base and this might actually be a terrible idea in reality, please tell me if you think so! Thanks in advance! Best, Daybeers ( talk) 02:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Correct, USSTATION should be applied to all of the articles. You'll get objections from the usual suspects (mostly DanTD claiming you're ruining everything and threatening to quit WikiProject Trains for the 87th time), but it's an obvious and useful set of moves. I would place the move notice on Jamaica - Penn Station will not need to be moved. Good luck, and let me know when you do it!
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 05:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Haha okay thanks! I actually decided to post the discussion on WP:USSTATION at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#LIRR station naming convention since there are 129 current stations and 147 former stations. I thought that was a little too big for a requested move. – Daybeers ( talk) 06:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Called it.
Mackensen
(talk) 12:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yup, I've seen this guy around a bit, but I've decided debate his strange views at the LIRR station requested move. Feel free to chime in if you'd like haha! – Daybeers ( talk) 04:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm working through the template issues highlighted at WP:TWP and find that I can't remove {{ infobox rdt}} from Grand Trunk station (Richmond) because {{ St. Lawrence and Atlantic line map}}. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Never mind; the code that handles route_map in infobox station is terrible. I'm working on it in the sandbox. Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Good luck - all of the code surrounding RDTs continues to baffle me. This does remind me that all the Grand Trunk Station (XXX) articles need a mass rename... Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Testing out an idea with services on Capital Beltway station and would be interested in your feedback. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm. I definitely like the general concept to deal with the old mess of service names. (How many other stations will need it? Rye is the only one that comes to mind.) I would suggest some changes:
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 03:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Only use it for the mass of named trains that preceeded the current Northeast Regional; the LD trains, Metroliners, and the oddball Chesapeake and Beacon Hill are all different classes of service and should get their own s-rail rows
- Have it say "Northeast Corridor services" and possibly link to the history section of the Northeast Regional article
- All good points. There's something to be said for collapsing all the individual services on the Northeast Corridor, though I doubt I could persuade many people.
Mackensen
(talk) 11:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- I could be convinced to collapse the LD services where they all make identical stops, but I think it's important to have separate rows for the different types of stopping services. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Amtrak paint schemes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Amtrak paint schemes 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
Legobot, on behalf of
Spinningspark --
Spinningspark (
talk) 08:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you please respect my request not to use graphic tick marks. It interferes with my own use of symbols to track issues I consider dealt with. Spinning Spark 09:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @ SpinningSpark: My apologies - I made sure not to strike anything, but missed the tick marks. I've removed them. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Amtrak paint schemes
The article
Amtrak paint schemes you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Amtrak paint schemes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Spinningspark --
Spinningspark (
talk) 07:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
|
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For fighting the good fight at Amtrak paint schemes and turning it into a Good article. Truly impressive! Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC) |