In the absence of discussion here, I've been bold and added linked reporting marks to the stations Following the example of the PT&T, I only linked the company responsible for construction, and not any later tenants or owners. A possible exception is Weehawken; I don't know exactly who built it, and West Shore Railroad doesn't list any reporting marks anyway. The NYC will do for now, as they wound up with it. —CComMack (t–c) 01:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Just found this, so I apologize for not commenting before. The more I think about it, the less I think the reporting marks should be in the navbox. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, all the reporting marks are historical, not current, which is of relatively limited interest. The currently active terminals have gone through many hands over the years, and I tend to think that most people would want to know the current users first. Anyone wishing to know the original builders or later tenants can check the articles.
Which brings me to my second reason. It is clutter. Navboxes are supposed to provide quick links, not a lot of info. That's what the article is for.
So, as per WP:BB, I'm removing them. Also changing a few other details, like putting all currently active stations before historical ones.oknazevad (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I like the idea of the railroad names, whether they're current or former. ----DanTD (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting that the template is called intercity terminals, yet lists LIRR stations, which have never served intercity trains. Methinks a name change is in order. And Secaucus Junction should be added, as well. It's rather comparable to Jamaica, and if the Jamaica article is to be believed, actually busier. oknazevad (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to add it at all. It's still the same station, at the same location, with the same tracks and platforms. One link to it is sufficient. I also don't think that separate article, an unneeded content fork that was shot down in discussion years ago until one editor misread the discussion and decided to copy the entire section verbatim. It's a mess, and should just be re-merged. If we must include a link, I prefer the entirely separate link in the historic section; the parenthesis just look terrible. oknazevad (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)