User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from August 2013 (the end of Archive 3) to July 2014. 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.

Capturing the Discourse

In contributions to the Green Line Extension, I was trying to shed light on the implicit argument that the MBTA and MassDOT seem to be making, that lumps College Ave in the Medford Hillside neighborhood. This concern was registered several times in the Green Line Extension Public Meeting Summary Minutes, and is acknowledged in the response to Questions referenced in the original post, as well as a MassDEP letter to MassDOT accessible here. The information I referenced is presented in a blog, but is a reproduction of a Memo submitted to MassDOT and MBTA, and acknowledged by Mr. Jonathan Davis, and Mr. Richard A. Davey in public documents. Any suggestions on how I can more objectively, and more effectively, convey the contending arguments between community members and MBTA? Wilfordd (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do; however, be careful with it. The GLX has attracted all sorts of kooks - ever been to any of the public meetings? - and they're required to record everything in the public minutes. Those official documents you linked show the MBTA and MassDOT's position on the geographic issue; however, they do not serve to cast any reasonable doubt on MassDEP's authority to determine geography. One person's self-published arguments don't currently constitute sufficient discourse to mention in the article; since the official letters roundly reject his challenges to MassDEP. I could write to MassDOT and allege that "Medford Hillside" is actually in Woburn*, and I'd receive the same sort of reply.

If there are opinion-of-the-editor editorials in the Globe, or if STEP puts out an official statement on the matter, then it becomes an equal discourse. For now, all I see is one guy shaking his fist at the sky, and that's not worth putting in the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for help; need help on New Haven Line page

Thank you for fixing the table on the Shore Line East page regarding West Haven. I've been struggling with the table edits on West Haven's entry, which I created on the New Haven Line page. I must have gone through 25 iterations and can't get it right. Could you please help fix it? Also, the route map of SLE as displayed on the page does not show West Haven, and I don't know how to access it.Raryel (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the New Haven Line table was created with old-school HTML-style table code and never converted to a wikitable, so I don't blame you for getting confused. Took me a few iterations to get it, but it should be working now.

The SLE map is at Template:SLE map. If you're using the older edit interface it's easy to find what RDT (route diagram template) is being used on a specific page - just took at the list of templates below the edit box. I'm not sure about VisualEditor - I don't generally use it. I've fixed the template and it's displaying fine for me; you might just need to hit F5 or purge the cache. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind help. The table looks very good now.Raryel (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MBTA Platform Layout

I have read some of the comments in regards to the platform layouts I have created on the MBTA stations. Is seems that most editors are more concerned with the amount of space they take up and about the coding in the actual article. If you click here, you will notice i removed the platform layout and replaced it with a template that has the layout. This reduces the size of the article and eliminated the code in the article itself. Please note that I am not trying to force you and other editors to accept these. I just think that they can be a better addition to the article, as some people can learn better visually than by reading. If you and others still feel they are unnecessary, I will remove them all together and delete the template. Please let me know your thoughts. Mysteryman557 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it eliminates some of the problems, but it's really just pushing them down the line. This would require a separate template for every single stations. A generic template (adjusting side/island platforms, directions, destinations, etc) would be easy to make, but only useful for basic one or two platform stations. We already have next-stop information in the form of s-rail templates; that takes care of all the simple cases. (All railway systems in North America are right-hand running; saying that Aquarium has two side platforms tells all that one needs to know.) The only stations that really justify having diagrams are a) very complex stations that wouldn't work well with a simple template (but would with an SVG image), and b) insertion of actual as-built diagrams like File:Boylston plan.png for historical purposes. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

By removing the next stop portion of the layouts (the part in the small text) one template can be used for several different stations. I've replaced most of the stations on the blue line with the template. I will hold off on the rest to allow you and the other editors to get an opinion about them. Just to remind you, I am not trying to force you to agree to keeping them, I am just trying to offer some solutions. Mysteryman557 (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Replacement with the template is fine for now while the discussion continues. Do remember though that Government Center and Bowdoin are center-islands. The general consensus seems to be that they're probably not worthwhile on simple stations, but we shall see. Thanks for being reasonable with the discussion here. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You're Welcome. And yes, I do remember that both are simple island platforms. However, Government Center is a complex which can most likely share a template with the green line platform and Bowdoin can use a template that is used for the orange line center island platform (by writing the correct program). However, I will hold off on the remaining stations until consensus is reached. You may also wish to know that as for the NYC Subway stations, I followed your advice and was able to convince others to create templates for the platform layouts. Mysteryman557 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Middleborough/Lakeville reversion

"Outbound" means "leaving" and is not a direction. The infobox {{{line}}} parameter is for a list not for details that should be in the article. Why have you not added a similar additional succession from Buzzards Bay to Wareham? Why have you not fixed the CapeFLYER succession so that the boxes link directly? All I am doing is just a little cleanup and I do not want to fix all of the inconsistencies. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• OK! So I've fixed some of the problems noted. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Outbound is a direction - the direction away from the inbound terminus. That is standard notation for commuter rail and radial metro line stations and is used across Wikipedia. I don't think there's any reason to mention Buzzards Bay - a station that's linked only by 3RT per week - rather than implicitly South Station (~10RT/day).

I feel that seasonal services should be mentioned as such in the {{{line}}} parameter as well as in the prose; that is done widely across Wikipedia as well.

I hadn't added the second template to Buzzards Bay simply because I haven't added much of anything to Buzzards Bay. I happened to do a bunch of research on Middleboro all at once so I've kept that article exactly to current. Thanks for fixing that one.

Earlier in the summer, I created redirects for Wareham, Buzzards Bay, and Hyannis in the form of Wareham (MBTA station) (and also Wareham (CCRTA station)) for this very purpose. Because of the generic redirects, there is no need to hard-code the redirects into {{MBTA stations}} (but it's fine now that you've but it in).

I understand what you're trying to do, but there are reasons that many of these things are the way they are. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes you are right - we have both been cleaning up pieces. Nobody seems to have come to grips with all of the CapeFLYER stuff. What I tried to do is make some of the articles consistent, at least in the parts I edited. How the CapeFLYER is presented in one station is how it should be shown in them all.

Anyway! I now get what "Outbound" means. "Seasonal" refers to the service and, if you wanted, could be included by default in addition to the line name in the succession template so that it shows up everywhere without additional edits. Because {{{line}}} is only a list it is redundant to the complete information in {{{services}}} and could be removed without loss of any information. Stations should always be formatted to connect without a redirect. We can work together on this and I had no intention of disrupting what you have done, just polishing it a little. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The line and services parameters aren't always identical. Branched services are the most common example of that. The current setup is fine in that regards; better to be redundant and standardized than be missing a universally used parameter. I get you on the redirects - I forgot that navboxes (of which s-rail is an edge case) shouldn't have redirects if possible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at CPL

Thanks again for helping out last night at the CPL Edit-a-thon. My first article was approved today Historic Cambridge Newspaper Collection and I'm determined to write more! I was playing around with what we worked on last night and I'm wondering if you could help me modify the media upload template you created to the art template (i.e., like the Brooklyn Museum). Thanks! Cambridgeroom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

US station naming conventions

Hi! You're being spammed because you've participated in the move discussion at Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)#Requested move. I'm seeking input for a broader policy solution to US station name articles at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations) and I hope that you'll participate there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Rufus Turner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rufus Turner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rufus Turner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

DYK for Track 61

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Rape Culture

The article is focused mostly on female issues, and the 'Violence against men' category is weak and mostly unfounded. I feel it also reduces the focus on said female issues, and inclusion of it within the article reinforces oppression towards women. --Jamesmullard1 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rufus P. Turner

Hello! Your submission of Rufus P. Turner at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rufus P. Turner

Looks good. Thanks for helping with the DYK project Victuallers (talk)) 00:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Account creator userright

After reviewing your request for the account creator right, I have enabled the flag on your account for the purposes of overriding the rate limit only. Keep in mind these things:

• The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
• Please do not use the "ignore the blacklist" or "ignore spoofing checks" checkboxes. If this is required they should make a request through the request an account process, there will most likely be a waiting time so it would be best for them to choose a new username.
• Please also ensure that any usernames you create comply with the username policy.

Once you are finished with the course please let me know so I can remove it. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you still have a need for the account creator userright? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I shouldn't. Feel free to kill the bit, and thanks for the quick response last week. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, no worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

New Haven Line stations in Westchester County

You seem to be the big New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad expert on Wikipedia. How much information can you add regarding the origins of the Metro-North New Haven Line stations in places like Mount Vernon East, Larchmont, Harrison, and Rye Stations? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a heck of a lot, actually. My useful knowledge doesn't extend much past New Haven. I can do the research if you want, but I have a lot on my plate right now. My apologies. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Pittsfield and North Adams Railroad

I've got a sandbox for the Pittsfield and North Adams Railroad, that I'm working on, and remembering how much of a New England-related railfan you are, I was hoping you could clear up an issue or two. For starters, was there an actual station at North Adams Junction? Next, exactly at what point between the 1842 charter and the 1846 opening, did the Western Railroad of Massachusetts buy the P&NA? If I have anything else, I'll ask here, unless you know of another editor who might know better. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good so far. There was a station at the junction; see this map (tiny print near the W.S. Noble buildings). I don't have an exact date, but I can tell you that the Western not only leased it before completion, but built it. (Southern New England Railroads book on my userpage, pp.161-162). That book also confirms the station. When you move it into article space, I have a KML file ready to go. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad you like it. I made some other adjustments, and though I'm not sure it's ready for the article space at this point, I could post it anyway and let you take over. I'm still looking for the pre-1900 NYC schedules showing Harlem Line trains going past Chatham to the North Adams Branch(a redlink that I'll redirect there, of course). There is one reference I had to add in an unorthodox manner, because part of the URL showed up in the title. You ready to see it posted? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh, that's your call. I don't have too much time for Wikipedia until the semester's over, but whenever you move it to article space I can get the KML up quickly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mural on a wall near Andrew Square

Thanks for you help, research, and explanation for the image on the photo I took which was a mural on a wall in Andrew Square. Per File talk:Mural near Andrew Square Boston 06032014,jpg.jpg. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I wish we could have that image in the article, but unfortunately US copyright law is very backwards in regard to freedom of panorama. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Right. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of pictures...

...word on the street is that the new Viewliner baggage car is at the Southampton Street Yard. No idea for how long, though. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Hell of a time for me to be 500 miles away on an island. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh. An island sounds nice right now. It'll keep ;). Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Extremely unconstructing involvement at Acela Express

Hello. This edit summary was extremely unconstructive. You'll notice that I have been very actively engaging on the talk page, and that I only reverted back the article after the editors who want to label Acela "high-speed rail" did not respond for nearly two weeks. Coming in and reverting without discussing, and leaving messages like, "You have been repeatedly told the EU definitions are not what are being used here. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears" is not helpful. If you want to contribute to the article, I invite you to discuss the issues on the talk page. I've raised various issues that so far have not been addressed, and I've made a compromise suggestion that I think should be very amenable to all editors. I hope you'll take a look and consider it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly refusing to listen to other editors who point out that European codes do not matter in this article, as Wikipedia goes by regional definitions when they conflict. (Note US Code). Reverting without consensus (the previous consensus was "high speed rail" which you have been changing) means that you are not listening to other editors, which is why I originally left that edit summary. That said, I sincerely apologize for my tone - it was out of line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You write as if I am compelled to agree with you. I have listened, and I'm not convinced, as I have explained at length. Your tone here is still out of line. You can approach the discussion without inflammatory statements about "repeatedly refusing to listen" or you can recuse yourself. Up to you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Suit yourself; the discussion is over regardless of whether you choose to be convinced. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You have an extremely imperious and unconstructive attitude. You can declare the discussion over as much as you'd like. That doesn't make it so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to call someone imperious it really ought to be me. I'll wear it. What's unconstructive is continuing this conversation here instead of at Talk:Acela Express. He apologized for his tone. That ought to have been the end of the matter. Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of R-Line (RIPTA)

Hello Pi.1415926535,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged R-Line (RIPTA) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. AlanS (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)