Talk:Fox Chase Line
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Material from R8 (SEPTA) was split to Fox Chase Line on 10:55, 28 July 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:R8 (SEPTA).|
Do we need so many headers?
Topic says it all; it seems to me that there are too many subheaders in the "Attempts at restoration" section. The break up the flow of the section too much, in my opinion. I can see that each subsection details a different proposal for new service on the segment, but many of the ideas were barely anything more than paper proposals, and may not be sufficient for their own header. The section is certainly well referenced, but I think it could be streamlined a bit. oknazevad (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Fox Chase Line
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fox Chase Line's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "pawson":
- From Walnut Hill (SEPTA station): Pawson, John R. (1979). Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area. Willow Grove, Pennsylvania: John R. Pawson. pp. 54, 59. ISBN 0-9602080-0-3.
- From Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line: Pawson, John R. (1979). Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area. Willow Grove, Pennsylvania: John R. Pawson. pp. 54, 59. ISBN 0-9602080-0-3.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line removal
I am going to remove a lot of the content currently in the Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line section. The entire section was copied word-for-word from the Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line article, so it wouldn't make sense to have it twice. I edited the FCRTL article last night so the text is no longer identical (mainly due to NPOV issues, weasel words, etc.) but the entire section has no place here. The FCRTL non-free images are also not appropriate for this article and only belong in the FCRTL article. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Like many SEPTA Regional Rail related articles, this one has some major issues that need to be sorted out. First, it is written like an essay, with each section reading like a chapter in a book rather than an encyclopedia article. Second, the text does not follow WP:NPOV and uses a lot of biased words and phrases, usually making SEPTA seem like a careless organization. Third, it is missing a lot of references throughout. I have been working on a lot of SEPTA Regional Rail articles lately, removed the biased text, cleaning it up, and tagging where necessary. Honestly, I'm getting quite sick of it because every article seems to have the same issues. I'm posting here with my reasons about what's wrong with the article because I don't think I have it in me anymore to go through the whole thing and add inline tags in every other sentence. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems there was a dispute as to whether the Fox Chase - Newtown segment was a "red herring" or a "red headed step child". Well for the sake of this article, I'm going to say it should be neither. Both are slang terms and not commonly used. To be honest, I'm not even completely sure what those expressions mean and English is my first language. So I'm sure it would lead to confusion for other readers as well. For those reasons, I've just removed it completely. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fine with me. While both are common idioms, at least in the US, neither is really appropriate for the article, and one was a complete misuse of the term. oknazevad (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Potentially useful sources
Here are some potentially useful sources for the 1982 collision of an RDC with a gasoline tanker: