User talk:C16sh/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:C16sh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Station ownership on Philadelphia/Harrisburg Line
Hi, in your recent edit for Philadelphia to Harrisburg Main Line, you stated that the prior cited source for station ownership was not available. In fact, it can be found at Archive.org. If you look at PDF page 32, Amtrak was the owner for all stations on the line except Suburban Station as of 2004. Which station articles have contradictory information? Maybe we can find a source to back them up or refute them. Atomsmith (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Practically every station page on the Main Line that is only served by SEPTA states ownership by SEPTA. I haven't got the time right now to go through every page and check this, but I flipped through most and they seem to be this way. You are right that the report does exist--I woud propose changing the incorrect ownerships to Amtrak using the link you've sourced above, if that is the most recent and reliable info. That said, I think you'd agree that it does seem a little odd that Amtrak would own the small slabs of concrete in which SEPTA embarks/disembarks at. I know for a fact that Amtrak owns the track between Harrisburg & Philly, but the main question is whether it owns the platforms station buildings (if applicable), and parking lots (also if applicable), and more importantly which should be displayed in the station infobox. Maybe both should be shown if there is joint ownership (Thorndale), or if Amtrak leases to SEPTA (Overbrook)? Thoughts? -- c16sh (talk to me) 03:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see you've been hard at work revising station articles! I have spent some time looking for better sources for station ownership. The property tax records are an absolute mess and very confusing. Within just Lower Merion Township, stations are variously listed in the name of Pennsylvania Railroad (with a SEPTA mailing address), Conrail, and Amtrak. Railroad properties seem to be exempt from local tax, so maybe there is no need to keep the records absolutely up to date. I think the 2004 document remains the most authoritative and recent source for all of the stations. A 2011 Amtrak ADA report confirms that Amtrak owns the intercity rail stations of interest (Paoli, Ardmore, Exton, and Downingtown) even though SEPTA is responsible for ADA improvements at the latter three. Atomsmith (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Coordinates removed from infoboxes
On many of your edits, you're removing coordinates from infoboxes. Why? Using coordinate parameters in infoboxes makes them a lot neater. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Coordinates should be in both locations. Having them in the "title" location makes the article discoverable by the "nearby" function of our mobile app, and in things like Google's Wikipedia layer. Having them in the Infobox means that they're emitted as metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry...maybe I dreamed that I read a page stating that one wasn't needed if the other existed. There were some other changes in those edits that were necessary, so I guess I'll redo those sometime in the near future.-- c16sh (talk to me) 14:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I already undid most of yours, unless there are some that I missed. There have been some that had duplicates, but most have been stations on the National Register of Historic Places. -------User:DanTD (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry...maybe I dreamed that I read a page stating that one wasn't needed if the other existed. There were some other changes in those edits that were necessary, so I guess I'll redo those sometime in the near future.-- c16sh (talk to me) 14:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
"MTA Long Island Railroad" links in infoboxes
Simply put, these are wrong. Firstly, it's "Long Island Rail Road", with two words for railroad. Secondly, no one, outside of agency press releases (which Wikipedia is not, actually puts the "MTA" there. Adding these links is not an improvement, and frankly is a pain to clean up after. Please revert to the previous links. oknazevad (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, I'll fix those links. -- c16sh (speak the truth) 01:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
TemplateData is here
Hey C16sh
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The Center Line: Summer 2013
 | ||
| Volume 6, Issue 3 • Summer 2013 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
Street signs
Please don't add unnecessary street sign images to NYC street articles, especially when they are artificial renderings and not photographs. Either way, though, unless there is something specifically interesting or informative about the sign, an image of it adds nothing to the article, since it is merely the text of the street name on a colored background. There's no need to clutter articles with images that do nothing to inform our readers. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- If that's what you think, why is there a sign for Broadway? Just because it's a well-known street outside of the city doesn't mean it should be the only one. — c16sh (speak up) 01:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no longer a street sign on the Broadway article. I have removed it, as I will from other street articles as I see them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I have undone your edits. The proper way to do this is to move the article, not screw around with redirects, and the proper way to make a move is to discuss it on the article's talk page first. Please don't do this again with first having a consensus to do so from the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The Center Line: Fall 2013
| ||
| Volume 6, Issue 4 • Fall 2013 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||