User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from January 2024 (the end of Archive 20) to May 2024. 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.

Your GA nomination of Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad

The article Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad for comments about the article, and Talk:Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Lifford Halt railway station

Why was the article Lifford Halt railway station deleted and redirected? All the other stations on the same line don't redirect. Now the link to the Lifford station on the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway page redirects to the same page. JoeMcCaff (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@JoeMcCaff: I came across the article while doing new page patrol. I redirected the article because it does not appear to meet the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only source was a trivial mention (a single line of data) in a self-published document (which is not considered a reliable source). I would suggest redirecting all of the station articles to the line article unless you can find sufficient independent, reliable coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Right. Well there's a number of books I own which have lists of the stations so I could add those. Just leave the others and I'll get on it in the morning. JoeMcCaff (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lough Swilly: How much detail does that book (and any others you have access to) provide about the station? If there's little or nothing more than opening/closing dates, that's far from the significant coverage required by the notability guideline. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly they do not have a lot of information specifically about them, other than facts about elevation or if they had a goods platform or not. These articles go back to 2012, I only added Lifford halt for consistency and it served the town of Lifford which is a particularly important town in County Donegal. If you think most of those stations do not meet the notability guidelines, would it be better to just add the infobox, few sentences about the station, and links to the preceding/following station on their respective town/townland page? Lough Swilly (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lough Swilly: You could do that, but I don't think it's the best option. Since none of the intermediate stations seem to have much information available other than open/close dates, it's probably best to have them all redirect to the article on the railway. You can add a table there similar to that at Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad#Station listing, with the station name, town name, mileage, and perhaps coordinates. The articles on the towns can just have a cited sentence saying XYZ station on the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway was open from 1 January 1909 to 1 January 1960. I would also suggest merging Letterkenny railway station (County Donegal Railways) into Letterkenny bus station since it's the same building. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my Watuppa Branch edits

Hello, I just saw that you reverted my Watuppa Branch edits. I understand why you did so; I just thought I'd say that I hadn't finished the edits/citations, which is partly why it looked so awkward. I should have finished it then. I am planning to revert your edit, so I can complete from where I started, if that is okay with you. Sorry about that and about the confusion. Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@EPBeatles: Thanks for the note. In the future, there are several ways to avoid this issue while working on an article:

• If your edits will take more than a few days to complete, use a sandbox - either a user sandbox like User:EPBeatles/sandbox or a talk page sandbox like Talk:Watuppa Branch/sandbox. This allows you to work at your own pace, since you aren't editing the public-facing article.
• If you'll be making the edits within a span of few hours to a few days, you can use {{under construction}} or {{in use}} to indicate that.
• If the text is fully ready and you're going to add more citations quickly, you can indicate that in your edit summary. Uncited text can be removed at any time, so it's best to only do this if you'll be adding the requisite citations within a few hours.

There were also some issues with the text you added:

• The sentence beginning Pictures of the three Westport stations is not relevant. The publication may be a useful source, but there is no need to discuss it in the prose.
• Station lists should be as a table (see Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad#Station listing for a good example) rather than a list in the prose. The word "station" is not part of the proper names of the stations and should not be capitalized.
• Unless you can produce a source that says it's unknown, saying It is currently unclear if... is not appropriate wording for an article.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ex-Ann Arbor main line

I'm getting close to moving User:Mackensen/Toledo–Frankfort railway line into main space and would appreciate your feedback. In the manner of marginal lines in the Northeast/Midwest the post-1976 ownership is messy. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Unsurprisingly, it looks pretty good. Some comments, in no particular order:

• You'll definitely want to sync this article with the main Ann Arbor Railroad article. Since this was the entire rail system of the Ann Arbor, save for the M&LS subsidiary, I'm worried there will be a lot of overlap.
• Most of the redlinks can be redirects either to this article or the main article, depending on where they're most discussed.
• Has the line actually been abandoned past Yuma, or just left OOS?
• Were the sections bypassed in 1896 and 1897 abandoned then, or later?
• Clarify that the GTW already had a line that directly paralleled the AA between Durand and Owosso - the existing wording confused me a bit.
• Clarify that the railroad built a new spur to Cherry Street station (I'm assuming that's the case and it wasn't on another railroad's line)

Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

All good points, thank you. Observations:

• Oh definitely. Several articles will need adjustment.
• Probably; though some are part of different systems.
• Well, a significant part is an actual rail trail. I haven't covered that yet.
• I think then? Meints covers it, but I'm not near Meints for a few days.
• Yeah, the whole business with the parallel GTW line confused me for days--including working out which one was abandoned, and the actual points of connection.
• Information on the Cherry Street street spur, and indeed all the industrial trackage in Toledo, was difficult to come by. Definitely new build though.

Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please Removed Locomotive Fleets on All Railroads.

If you need a list of Wiki railroads, so you can remove the locomotives fleet of that said railroad, because that's what your doing. Feel free to hollar. There's over 50 on here.

All edits, are in accordance to other articles.. Yeahimaboss413 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yeahimaboss413: Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources in their entirety. Doing so will save you a lot of heartache. Citations to reliable sources are required for all information on Wikipedia. User-generated sites like railfan photo sites are not considered reliable sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rhinecliff station

The article Rhinecliff station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rhinecliff station for comments about the article, and Talk:Rhinecliff station/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Barca d'Alva railway station

Hi Pi.1415926535. Having also received a note about the GAN backlog drive, I found an article about Pocinho railway station, which had a Rough Translation banner, which I sought to address. That led me to the Barca d'Alva railway station article, which also had a Rough Translation banner, and which I have also sought to rectify. Only when I had finished did I notice that you had recently failed it in a GA review, a decision which was absolutely correct at the time, but I thought that you might like to know that it is now in much better shape, and someone may put it back into the queue again. Who knows? Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bob1960evens: Good work cleaning up the article, and thanks for letting me know! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

North Station

Good catch, thanks! I reported this to c:Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting. --TheImaCow (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For the Termini, can we enforce a consistent format across the destinations?

Particularly, why does Chicago not get it's state listed after it? Further, since we are abbreviating District of Columbia as D.C., why do we not use abbreviations for all of the states? I just think it would be nice to follow a consistent format for all even if it is a small thing. Let me know your thoughts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Whitcomb_Riley_(train)&diff=next&oldid=1211304973 Jcody21 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jcody21: In general, state names don't need to be abbreviated unless there's a compelling reason to, which there's not here. Chicago didn't have the state name probably because that article doesn't have it. (It's one of a small number of articles where that's the case; I think that convention comes from the AP style guide.) I'm fine if you'd prefer the link in the infobox to read as Chicago, Illinois.

Washington, D.C. is a special case, since it's a combined city and federal district. The "D.C." is part of the city name and not a state abbreviation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

California High-Speed Rail

Hi Pi.1415926535! I noted that you have been making occasional edits to California High-Speed Rail. That article is in need of a general overhaul, as it has been growing in a somewhat uncontrolled manner during the past 2 or 3 years. I made some high-level suggestions in the discussion: Talk:California_High-Speed_Rail#Clean-up_and_Harmonisation. Given that the topic seems to match your interests, I'd like to ask if you would be interested in forming a team to give it a proper scrub. I am quite new to doing serious edits on Wikipedia and am keen to take it on, but for the sake of everyone I should not be doing it by myself. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@DracaenaGuianensis: I fully agree that the article needs an overhaul, and your suggestions on the talk page look good. Unfortunately, I'm probably not the right person for it. While I'm generally knowledgeable about California transit, I actually don't have more than a passing familiarity with CAHSR, nor do I have the time in the foreseeable future to give the article the attention it deserves. (For specific technical or writing questions, though, you're welcome to ask and I can take a quick look.) You might consider asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Diagrams

I don't recall if you're an AWB/JWB user, but the regular expression {\|.*\n(?:\|.*\n)+\n?\|} will capture most of the HTML-based station layout diagrams. Mackensen (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I'm not, though I ought to learn one of these days. (And learn some basic regexes while I'm at it...) For larger stations like Union Station (New Haven) and San Jose Diridon station where services have fairly consistent tracks, I wonder what would be the best way to show that. Neither RDTs nor images are accessible (though images at least support alt text). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a fairly strong argument for not drilling all the way down to which services use which tracks. I don't do that on Swiss stations, even though there it can actually be sourced because the same trains always use the same platforms. Describing in prose with an accompanying image and/or RDT is probably the best approach. That way the RDT is supplementary and not carrying the full load. Thryduulf mentioned Stratford station#High-level platforms during the 2020 RfC; I think it's a little detailed, but a good approach overall. Mackensen (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I can see the case with that for mainline stations, but for some station types (NYCS in particular) I think it's valuable to explain what services use what tracks. I 100% agree that the prose should always be the main information; any illustrations should supplement that. The Stratford example is a good way about it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Rhinecliff station

On 19 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rhinecliff station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rhinecliff station was unusually large for a small hamlet due to the influence of John Jacob Astor IV and Levi P. Morton? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rhinecliff station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rhinecliff station), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

3/20/2024

Please stop your disruptive editing Please stop reverting edits on the Amtrak Paint Schemes article.You keep reverting a change where I replaced an image of a phase VII P42 with a better one that showed the paint scheme better. And your claim of removing alt text makes no sense as all i did was replace the image while keeping the same caption as the original image. If you continue to revert without proper reason, you may be blocked from editing. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether you meant to or not, you did remove alt text (mostly because Pi had just added it): Special:Diff/1214749103. You did it again here: Special:Diff/1214749478 when you reverted him. Alternative text is important for accessibility reasons. Threatening another user with a block isn't a good way to de-escalate an edit war. I'll start a discussion at Talk:Amtrak paint schemes. Mackensen (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Relevant information for Northeast Corridor

I completely understand the reason for the rollback here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeast_Corridor&diff=1214598980&oldid=1214596692&variant=en. I want to add references and give more info about the rail line as I have the documents and info from closed groups who work on and are Amtrak employees. How might I go about adding that and/or would this be too much to add? I always wanna add information to add more statistics and data when possible. Funforme3 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Funforme3: There are several important pages on sources that you should read:

• Verifiability: All information needs to be cited to publicly available, published sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, timetables, etc. Internal documents and other non-public sources are not suitable for Wikipedia; neither is information that is only available in a private forum.
• Reliable sources: These sources need to be reliable, which generally means they have been published by a reputable organization such as a government agency, academic journal, newspaper, etc where there is some layer of editorial fact-checking. Personal posts on Facebook or forums are not reliable sources.

Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a technical journal. The level of technical detail needs to be appropriate to the scope of the article; minutia such as details of the rail used is not useful on an article discussing a subject as broad as the Northeast Corridor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Grand Rapids Subdivision

Grand Rapids Subdivision probably shouldn't have gotten through AfC. The topic is certainly notable, but the article is messy railfan trivia, and the author got nailed for socking and competence a few months later: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xxx anon/Archive. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You may want to take a close look at {{New England Central Railroad}}; the diagram for the Grand Rapids Subdivision was full of errors. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Good catch, and thanks for trimming it down. I'm generally willing to give AfC reviewers some slack on technical subjects, but that article was egregiously bad in multiple aspects.

@Trainsandotherthings: You're the expert here on the NECR; could you take a close look at the RDT? I see a few blatant errors at first glance that I'll correct, but I'm not very familiar with their freight operations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not an expert on those RDT templates, I've come to prefer the OSM-linked maps as they show a far greater level of detail. That being said, it becomes a pain in the ass to make them for larger systems, and I spent many hours toiling in OSM to make the map you see in Providence and Worcester Railroad. Your edit was a major improvement. Strictly speaking, the line should have its southern terminus at the state pier in New London (though that's being rather detailed), and adding a few waypoints would probably make it easier to follow (such as Norwich and St. Albans). The yard at St. Albans is missing (NECR even has an active roundhouse and turntable there), along with a smaller yard at Brattleboro. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the NECR is on the high end of how complex of a railroad can be usefully shown with an RDT; the P&W certainly couldn't. At some point I'll probably create Central Vermont Railway mainline and move the RDT there; it'll be a lot cleaner not trying to indicate both connecting lines and operators. Thanks for the suggestions - I've added those to the RDT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Side note, we should settle a convention on main line articles. I wrote Main Line (Reading Company) a while ago; I think it offends NCCAPS. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Morristown Line

NJ Transit's habit of using the same name for lines and services has bugged me for a while, and I've been staring at Morristown Line for a few days trying to decide what to do. I think in the event of a split, the infrastructure would be located at Morristown Line (infrastructure); that's the actual name and probably the best disambiguator? I've done some drafts of covering both topics in the same article and it's rough. Your thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Oof, that's a tricky split to make. I haven't needed to split any of the MBTA Commuter Rail articles like that yet, but at least they generally have different names than the services. I don't love (infrastructure) - it's a little clunky - but I think you're right that it's the best available.

Is there enough material to bother with a split yet? Right now, it looks like most of the article length is that massive uncited description of the route. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In terms of length, maybe not, though I'd also be pulling things from Morris and Essex Railroad, since the Morristown Line was that company's main line. I'm waiting for the first volume of Taber to show up before I tackle it. The route description is a mess and has been for years, and that really also belongs on the line. Main line (Morris and Essex Railroad) is possible, but it wouldn't pass muster as a common name. Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This has especially bugged me for the Montclair-Boonton Line- a split would be amazing. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Rail Runner Navbox issue

For the Template:Rail Runner I would like you to explain it to me like i'm five, what part of WP:NAVBOX are you referring to that makes this template unworthy of the original design, yet the SunRail one, which is based off the original design from this one, is allowed to maintain its style? Raymos says hello 07:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@RaymosXN40: Thanks for asking. There are several issues with including the municipalities and rolling stock in these templates. In particular, it is incompatible with the guideline that All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. The municipalities are wholly separate subjects from the rail service; the articles on them are unlikely to discuss the rail service with more than a single sentence mentioning a station. It is also incompatible with guidelines 3 and 5 - the municipality articles are unlikely to link to most of the other articles, and they would not be appropriate "see also" links.

For the rolling stock, while it is more connected to the rail service, it is still not useful for it to be in the template. The rolling stock is unlikely to be linked from any of the station articles, and vice versa. It also presents an issue with the bidirectionality guideline - it would be neither useful nor appropriate to have navboxes for numerous rail systems on the articles about the rolling stock.

It's not that {{SunRail}} was "allowed to maintain its style" - it was just as much an issue, it simply was that no one had yet fixed it to comply with the guidelines. I've now done so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

gallery at gallery place chinatown

is their any reason why you deleted the "Gallery" portion in the gallery place chinatown article? I ask because that is one of the major transfer stations with two levels and also one of the busiest stations with a lot of unique features to it Gymrat16 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gymrat16: Per WP:GALLERY, a gallery is not for including an indiscriminate selection of images in an article - they should only be used when there is a specific need to display a set of images. The gallery that I removed was a random selection of images that had no specific purpose. Other than the photo of the artwork (which I replaced with an image without copyright issues), they didn't contribute to readers understanding the subject beyond the text and inline images. In general, it's very rare for a properly researched and written station article to need a gallery. I think the only one I've found necessary was at Alewife station where there's a set of artworks discussed in the text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

alright so can I at least add back the Yellow line artwork, chinese art work then that transfer Red/Green picture back? Then done? Gymrat16 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gymrat16: No, I don't think there's a need to include additional images at this time. Gallery Place station is only 600 words, and none of the other photos would substantially add to readers' understanding of the subject. The Commons category, which contains all of our images of the station, is already linked at the bottom. If you want to improve the article, adding citations (especially to the unsourced items in the history section) would be much more valuable than adding images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

you literally said though that the art work was fine though. Metro has always been well known for its fancy art work and other stations have "gallery" files under them such as Union Station, Rosslyn and Wiehle Reston East have that on their articles so why can't Gallery Place Chinatown? Especially since that station is far more popular and distinctive than those other 3? I am not questioning your thoughts I am just confused and kind to why this is occurring for other stations that are no where near as significant as Gallery Place Chinatown. I say this because I know the DC Metro system better than anyone being from Alexandria. Gymrat16 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Im not trying to be difficult by any means I was only saying that I was just trying to improve that article by articulating what has been done on others. Gymrat16 (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gymrat16: Again, please read WP:GALLERY. Articles do not have to - and in fact should not - include images of every single aspect of the subject. Images in articles should illustrate specific aspects of the text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an image gallery - that's why we have Wikimedia Commons for images. None of the galleries you mentioned in other articles are appropriate, either; I have removed the galleries and incorporated images into the text where appropriate

The example I gave of Alewife is an unusual case where the artwork is particularly notable (several pieces have their own articles), there is enough information to have a separate section, and high-quality free-use images are available of almost all the pieces. That's not the case here; there's only a few sentences about the artworks. the only image we have of The Yellow Line is poor quality, and Commons cannot host most images of The Glory of the Chinese Descendants because it is a post-1989 copyrighted artwork. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright man and I never said having every single aspect was appropriate in fact I couldn't agree more they don't have to nor should they. I was only talking about things that were unique and distinctive that not many other articles might have and simply just have a healthy discussion with you since we are both very knowledgable. Hopefully that makes a bit more sense and sorry if I wasn't clear on that and gave the wrong impression to you the first time. Gymrat16 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Our friend is back

See Special:Contributions/124.148.210.252. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Sigh. Thanks for letting me know - I've reported to AIV. Looks like they were also active as 194.223.38.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few days ago. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Why revert some changes?

I understand the revert of the broken lines in the subject bar and I suppose the typical isn't the typo but why not correct the links instead of just completely deleting the changes??

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystic_station_%28Connecticut%29&diff=1222924139&oldid=1222917905&variant=en Funforme3 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Funforme3: I reverted because none of the changes you made was an improvement to the article. To further explain two issues:

• Per MOS:DATETIES, articles primarily related to the United States should use the mdy date format. Adding {{Use dmy dates}} was thus incorrect.
• {{Subject bar}} is only useful when there are other projects that have related information. Neither Wikinews nor Wikivoyage has a page for Mystic station, so there is no correction that can be made to those links other than removing them.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ahh ok, I would've thought that using just Mystic_(Connecticut) for the Wikivoyage link would be sufficient? Funforme3 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In general, links to other projects should be as one-to-one as possible, so wikivoyage:Mystic (Connecticut) should be linked only from Mystic, Connecticut. (I see you've already added that link.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Questions regarding Boston transportation

Hi there. I understand you're into the topic of "transportation within the Boston area". I wanna ask about some stuff, but they're not wiki-related (maybe except Commons). Would it be okay if I ask the questions somewhere off wiki (maybe Discord/email etc) so I don't clog up this page from more important (and wiki-related) stuff? If you want to keep it here I'm okay also. Thanks. S5A-0043^Talk 13:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Aaaannnd I just read WP:TPG again and saw the line about WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK (somehow missed the line in an earlier reading) so apologies about that. S5A-0043^Talk 13:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@S5A-0043: You're welcome to send me an email using the "email this user" function. I can't promise a super-detailed response, but I'll do my best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Whittier Fault

Hi! I hope you don't mind me disagreeing with you on geolocating the Whittier Fault article, but I think low-resolution coordinates for something 40km long are actually quite useful, particularly if they point to somewhere in the middle of the fault. 40 km is large in the human scale of things, but it is very small in the scale of global geological objects, and it would be useful to know approximately where the Whittier Fault is on the globe, or even within California, which is 1200 km long by 400 km wide. Giving high-precision coordinates for such a feature is of course ludicrous, but what I have in mind are decimal coordinates with an indicated precision of perhaps 0.1 degree. Of course a map would be even better, but some low-precision coordinates are much better than nothing.

None of this is to advocate for giving geocoordinates for human-scale elongated features like roads or raiilway lines, which is ludicrous because the high precision required to locate a point on the feature is completely at odds with the length of the feature, and there is no reasonable solution other than geocoding the endpoints or providing a map.

I'd be interested in hearing your view on this. — The Anome (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Anome: Thanks for reaching out. My concern with low-precision coordinates for a linear(ish) feature is that they are unlikely to actually be on the feature, which runs the risk of them being reused elsewhere as (incorrect) high-precision coordinates that completely miss the subject. Even the nearest 0.1 degrees could be up to 5 km from the fault. It's different from, say, a valley of similar length, where even the imprecise coordinates could still fall within the bounds of the feature.

Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution for what to do with faults. They don't have clear endpoints like rivers or roads, and their subsurface nature makes it much more difficult to create a KML file by hand (or import from OSM etc). The USGS does provide downloadable data for fault locations, which could be used to create individual maps or a {{Location map}} basemap, but that's not something I have the spare time to do. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

GE Dash 8-32BWH

Hey Pi,

I did a rework of this article on a whim and was able to address most of the uncited material. I can't find a source regarding the Amtrak California service of two of the units however, and I was wondering if you might be able to cite it with the sources you have. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Looks like Mackensen beat me to it. Thanks to both of you for your work on the article! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. Pi...

Smol editor here. May I take you up on your offer to teach me about map data for an article, if you think Calle Ocho Festival would benefit from that? The only thing I know about Wikipedia maps is I never liked the ones where the red pushpin disappears when you click on it to enlarge it, not even when I just used Wikipedia like every other slob. I work full-time, but my boss lets me edit Wikipedia during downtime (Her sister is a university department head. She loves that I edit Wikipedia. Sc0re!) Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good use case for a map. There are two ways you could do it:

• The easier but less fancy way is to use {{Attached KML}}, which puts an icon at the top of the article that you can click on to show a map. See Yellow Line (BART) for an example - it's the "route map" at the very top of the article above the infobox. If you want to do that, you just have to create the map data in KML format and put it in a subpage of the template (i.e. Template:Attached KML/Calle Ocho Festival). I personally use Google My Maps which allows you to export to KML, so it's just copy-and-paste from there.
• The more difficult method is {{maplink}}, which can provide a very nice looking interactive map. It requires map data in GeoJSON format; I use User:Evad37/kmlToJson to convert KML data to the GeoJSON format. You add that data to a page in the Data namespace on Commons (see commons:Data:MBTA ferry.map for an example), and then the maplink template can display that in the article.

If you aren't already familiar with KML and GeoJSON, this may sound very complicated, but don't worry. All the technical work is already done; you just have to copy-paste data and add the right parameters to the template. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay replying, Pi, but I didn't know you had responded to me until I actually came back to this page to look (I thought I had forgotten to sign my post and you didn't see it). I can't get off the ground with Google My Maps because the My Maps instructions are so woefully inadequate and when I Google how to add routes, the search results are incomplete and confusing. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Oona Wikiwalker: Sorry to hear that you're having trouble with My Maps. If you want to send me an email (Special:EmailUser/Pi.1415926535) I can reply with instructions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you feel comfortable cutting and pasting what's in your email to my talk page? I really appreciate your time. Thank you! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Oona Wikiwalker: It would be easiest if I can include screenshots, which I would not be able to upload here for copyright reasons. I can try to describe it with text, but it might not be as clear. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ahh.. Okay, email it is! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Oona Wikiwalker: I haven't forgotten about this - hopefully I'll have the time this week. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit nervous about the JSON page. It's not that I'm clueless with technology, it's that I've seen the quality of editing on most articles I come across as I provide coordinates requested by bot (therefore a random cross-section). I do understand this is not maliciousness, it's just a case of too much input and not enough quality-control. But it makes me very hesitant to run any Wikipedia scripts or bots. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

New Haven Line signage (Differences)

Hi,

Apparently alongside the normal NHL signage, (ConnDOT for all other stops in Connecticut/CT Rail for Merritt 7 and New Haven State Street), there are different types of signage at some stops. For example, at Westport, Milford and Naugatuck, the text is black and not red. Glenbrook, Beacon Falls, Bridgeport and Greenwich have the text italicised. Redding, Derby-Shelton, Ansonia and Seymour have the text set to black and it is also italicised (kind of like the MNR style). How do I modify the style to match the signage for the ones with black text/black text italicised? Thanks for the help in advance. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, for the CT Rail signage, the text should be black. For Hartford, the text also should be centred as per official footage.

How do I do that? Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already italicised the text in the sign (infobox) for Bridgeport, Greenwich, Beacon Falls and Glenbrook as per real footage, by the way. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

For the ones at Westport, Milford and Naugatuck, I'm not sure on how to modify them?

Do you know how? Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pedroperezhumberto: I added a style for the CT stations with red above, black text, and no italicization. See edit to the module, and in use at Westport here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. For the other CT Rail stations, such as Merritt 7, New Haven State Street, Clinton (Shore Line East) and the stations managed by CT Rail on the Hartford Line, the text should also be black as per official footage. For Hartford, the text should be centred.

Thanks again for the help. — Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I've just done it. Just need to do Hartford to center the text. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I added it, but it doesn't work. Can you try and see the error in Module:Adjacent stations/CTrail? Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is for Hartford, CT station by the way. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sargent station

Hi, you helped me on my Del Monte Station article and I was wondering if you can take a look at this draft: Draft:Sargent Station. There is also a pending article about Draft:James Pattee Sargent that is refrenced in the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: Most of the article is about the village, not the station. It might be more advisable to create the article about the village, with a section for the station. Other notes:

• If you do have the article about the station, the title should be "Sargent station". Per WP:USSTATION, "station" should not be capitalized unless it is part of the proper name. For the vast majority of stations, including this one, it is not part of the proper name.
• Coordinates are incorrect - they point somewhere off the California coast.
• The Del Monte does not appear to have ever served Sargent. As shown in the 1945 timetable, the only train to serve the station was an overnight all-stops local. The last I can find Sargent in a timetable is April 1956, where it is a flag stop served only northbound. It is gone from the October 1957 timetable.
• There is no need for a gallery. Images should be inline if they are relevant to the text.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! I've made some changed based on your comments.

Looks like from the 1945 and April 1956 timetable (page 32, table 95-97) indicate it was a flag stop, but does not list which train. Looks like it was a stop that was used for both passengers and freight. Since the station started in 1869 with the Santa Clara and Pajaro Valley Railroad and later acquired SP, it seems historically notable. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The 1945 timetable shows it as a flag stop for southbound #72 L.A. Passenger and northbound #71 S.F. Passenger. The 1956 timetable shows it served only by unnamed northbound train #91. Neither the Del Monte nor the Peninsula Commute appear to have ever served the station, and there is no evidence that the station was served after 1957.

Most minor historical railroad stations are not notable, as substantial coverage is not available in independent secondary sources. That appears to be the case here - the sources are primarily discussing the ranch and/or oil fields, with tangential references to the station itself. Again, the article would be more useful (and more likely to survive AfD) if it is focused on the locality rather than the station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Attached KML/Bennington Street

Template:Attached KML/Bennington Street has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Cardinal edits

Stop reverting my deletion of the Lafayette Subdivision on the Amtrak Cardinal page. I stated multiple times that the train does not use this subdivision. Hexomega2319 (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hexomega2319: Please read WP:V and WP:RS. You have not offered any proof for your claim, and it will continue to be reverted until you add a reliable source to back it up. The Lafayette Subdivision is the only rail route between Crawfordville and Lafayette - what line are you claiming it uses between those stations? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I work for the railroad and have current timetables. The Lafayette subdivision was merged into the Monon subdivision. You can also see on this graph here that states the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CSX_Transportation_lines Hexomega2319 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally your Lafayette subdivision that you keep insisting on linking is not even the former CSX sub but is a UP sub. Hexomega2319 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hexomega2319: The policies that I linked above require sources to be publicly available. Employee timetables that are not publicly available cannot be used as sources because they cannot be verified by anyone else. The most recent document that I can find that is publicly available is the 2021 Indiana State Rail Plan, which lists the Lafayette Subdivision separately on page 278. I understand that it can be frustrating to have inside information that contradicts what Wikipedia says, but verifiability is an essential part of making Wikipedia reliable. While I believe you are actually an employee with no ulterior motives, it would be perfectly possible for someone to maliciously lie by claiming to be an employee - for example, claiming that a disused line is being reactivated in order to sell adjacent property for a higher price. It's better for Wikipedia to have slightly outdated but verifiable information, than up-to-the-moment but totally unverifiable information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Its not even listed on the Wikipedia page for CSX subdivisions that I just linked previously. You're using a document that is not even an official railroad source as proof. I'm trying to keep this page accurate and you're just reverting it by adding incorrect information in. Hexomega2319 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

https://monon.org/Images/MONONSubBlockName-MP.pdf

There you go a CSX track chart proving that the Lafayette Sub is now the Monon sub. Now please correct the article and stop reverting the correct information. Hexomega2319 (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Science fiction book / Davis Square

Note that it's a real science fiction book, that includes an illustration of Davis Square in 2028. Here is the book: https://www.amazon.com/Future-Without-Short-Stories-What/dp/B0D54CFS47/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Au-aHa_uPUMYPMSfiU59ZfyYV5USPcwIG8Pqt0uzFN_GjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.phhxd408hsHEowmEQKW8pHZGZGHyM9aElmRi7Vx6HnI&qid=1716930186&sr=8-1 Kartoun (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kartoun: Please read WP:COI. If you wrote this book, it is inappropriate for you to be writing about it on Wikipedia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah OK, thanks and sorry. I hope that one day someone else will add it. Kartoun (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)