Talk:Detroit, Lansing and Northern Railroad

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Detroit, Lansing and Northern Railroad route diagram.

Note[edit]

Just putting a marker down that this article is going to treat the Detroit, Lansing and Lake Michigan Railroad, the Detroit, Lansing and Northern Railroad, and the Detroit, Grand Rapids and Western Railroad as the same company. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With access to many of the company's own reports to the state Commissioner of Railroads, I've been able to expand the article in a way that more strongly focuses it on the DL&N. I also note that notwithstanding the above note, there is a separate DL&LM article. In that light, I wonder if it might not be time to remove the DGR&W redirect and let it have its own stub-level article. Mike McDowell —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment in line template[edit]

Somebody should fix the map template in this article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about the exact problem you're seeing? Aside from being a little large it renders fine for me. Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I address the following quote;

"The above shows the main line of the Detroit, Lansing and Northern as of November 11, 1896, when it reformed as the Detroit, Grand Rapids and Western, including crossings by other lines as they were then constituted. For clarity, most minor stops omitted. Italics indicate branches/crossings owned by other companies."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but such notations usually aren't found on the map templates themselves. They tend to be off to the side. I give you those in the Long Island Rail Road as examples. Take your pick. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's unusual (aside, how was I supposed to know that was the issue from your original comment?). I think my concern at the time was to locate the line template in a specific time. The greater issue is that this article is handling multiple companies and is probably due for a split. If split, the note wouldn't be necessary. Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done[edit]

The contrast this article makes with other RR articles in Wikipedia is shocking to the bone.

For ONCE we breathe a sigh of relief on getting a detailed and highly informative corporate history--try to find THAT in the other articles. We get sentences not written in pidgeon, middle-school English by persons incapable of de-inverting what they're trying to say out of non sequiturs having no narrative thread--a skill doubly important when it comes to recounting things as complex as railroad mergers and route topologies. Finally we express our positively eupeptic thanks on being spared the typical fare shoved down our throats of their branch stations, locomotive names, logos, lore, and undoubtedly dining car napkins--all of which have their place, to be sure. But when you insist on making that the lion's share of the article and leave out the likes of what's provided here, for God's sake wait until a doyen of the topic on a par with this author(s) writes the backbone of the article first.

Well done.

Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]