User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from March 2019 (the end of Archive10) to January 2020. 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.

FYI: User:Mackensen/3rd Street station (Oakland). Started collecting stuff when I was untangling the route template for the pre-Amtrak California Zephyr. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Complete rewrites of both CZ articles are on my to-do list; I'll probably turn the Oakland station into an article then. The CZ and other WP trains had lots of confusing station changes; fortunately I have access to some ETTs. Let me know if you come across any information on the stations (Fruitvale, San Leandro, Hayward, Decoto, Fremont/Niles) in the East Bay - the first four were located at/near where BART is now, and information on all is scant. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Track layout
Legend
to outbound to inbound

Discuss (per WP:BRD). Useddenim (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Pi has been removing station layout templates and RDTs for the past few months now (another example here), but this is likely due to link redundancy. Cards84664 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) {{Arlington (MBTA station)}} seems excessive for a standard station with two side platforms. Mackensen (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. The virtually-identical {{NYCS 2-tracked side platform station}} (illustrated ) appears on New York City Subway station pages with the same layout. Useddenim (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It could just be that there hadn't been much thought as to the usefulness of them until now since they're starting to become more common. I think they're cool at the more complex stations, but don't really add much at standard stations. I support Pi's removal. Grk1011 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what Mackensen and Grk1011 said. Station diagrams - whether inline or RDTs - are only there to support the text. There's no need to provide a diagram for a 2-track station with side platforms; absolutely no one is going to need the clarification. Multiple centralized discussions over the years have supported the removal of diagrams from simple stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Template:NYCS 2-tracked side platform station creator @Epicgenius:. Cards84664 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the template for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 3#MARC s-line templates. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Commons admin. I just hosed it instead. Mitch32^{(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.)} 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for producing a very nice map of former station locations for the Harvard station article, on very short notice. It’s a pleasure to have someone who is a master of graphics diagrams contributing to many of the transit articles which you work on! Reify-tech (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not great with these templates, do you think you could update this for me: Template:South Coast Rail Phase 1? Battleship Cove is part of the full build according to the latest phasing map from MassDOT here and shouldn't be included in the Phase I chart. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6: Will do. Where are you getting the King's Highway and Whale's Tooth station renames? I only see "North New Bedford" and "New Bedford" in a single document, while everything else seems to use the old names. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that's a lovely shot, especially given the somewhat mundane location. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That meant a lot today. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what's it there for them! why don't you teach me or fix it instead of destroying a useful link. be more progressive now mon ami.Ndołkah (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The style of interwiki link you were using has been depreciated for years. Please see Wikipedia:Wikidata#Managing Interlanguage links with Wikidata for instructions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For how many years? I was in jail, I didn't know!Ndołkah (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I just want to get a sense of your reasoning for why the California Zephyr's former service to Oakland should not be listed as a Former service on the Emeryville station page. From what I've seen, the general rule of thumb when a route used to continue past its current terminus is to just list that for any station it used to serve, and for the last station before that extension (which in this case is Emeryville). The Sunset Limited to Orlando/Miami and the Pennsylvanian to Chicago are good examples of this. By doing so, it allows the reader to see what services used to serve those stations, and shows that the current terminus was at one point just an intermediate stop, while still not causing information overload on irrelevant pages. But I guess I could possibly put Oakland as an alternative preceding station in the Services box, with an "Until 1997" note. I do think Former services makes the most sense, but I want to hear your thoughts. :) -Cpotisch (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts! It's a tricky case because it's the only 'former' route at Emeryville, and 'former' isn't really the best descriptor for a sill-existing service that was cut back one stop. I've re-added it with some clarifications - how does that look? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! I had been wondering how to deal with the fact that it served Oakland Central and then Jack London, but this deals with that perfectly. Appreciate it! -Cpotisch (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi.1415926535, here's the evidence for the name change to UCSF/Chase Center(16th St) https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2019/05/5-7-19_item_10.2_agreement_-_chase-ucsf_station_name_resolution.docx__0.pdf, not sure how it is supposed to go into the template. Also, if you could help me with the actual page I am not sure how to rename it without messing up the linking.

Thanks for the link. I'd say that we should hold off on renaming the article until the SFMTA switches to the new name - right now all their public-facing websites still use the old name. When the switch is done, I'll do the move and update associated links. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi.1415926535, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I think this is the right place to reach out to you. I'm a little bit confused as to why you marked my edit to the MassChallenge page yesterday as spam? I added a reference which cites a source, and the company I added was a finalist in the Rhode Island cohort. I thought this would qualify as 'notable alumni', but I wanted to hear what you thought of the edit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkerSutton (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WalkerSutton: Frankly, the entire TripBuddy article looks a lot like self-promotion (if not outright spam) to me. It's an article about a small startup that consists of a promotionally-worded, uncited history of the company, plus a listing (which I just removed) of press mentions and minor awards. I don't believe that it meets Wikipedia standards for notability of companies (almost no startup with 10 employees ever will), and in any case the listing on the MassChallenge article is intended to be for particularly significant alumni. (Compare for example Ksplice and Thinx, which have much more extensive articles based on extensive press coverage.)

I am guessing that you may be affiliated with the company. If so, please read Wikipedia policy on conflict-of-interest editing (particularly this starter guide). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to go to some abandoned stations that are still in tact. I know of a lot of them from looking up for their location, but i still don't know where some other stations locations are, like the location of Winchester Highlands, so i dont know if they have anything left in tact. can you please list all the abandoned mbta stations you know of that still have remnants along with their location in coordinates? Pilot0674 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help if you have questions about individual stations, but asking for a complete list is a ridiculous request. (Winchester Highlands, incidentally, was at Cross Street, and there are no remains.) Ward Maps and Historic Aerials are very helpful for finding former station locations. If you're specifically looking for station buildings, John Roy Jr's A Field Guide to Southern New England Railroad Depots and Freight Houses is invaluable, if slightly dated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have reverted your article move for Stoneham Railroad Depot as it conflicted with WP:COMMONNAME. Please let me know if you have any questions! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) @Steve Lux, Jr.: I've opened a discussion at Talk:Stoneham Railroad Depot#Article title. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't live yet but I'm working on it and I have a question about Sunday services. Does BART actually show different line names for these use cases, or is this a Wikipedia-ism (Dublin/Pleasanton–Daly City line vs Dublin/​Pleasanton–​MacArthur line). It's easy with Adjacent stations to have one line entry but then override the termini at the infobox level. Similar question with the Green and Orange line extensions. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The line extensions were my doing, those should be the line names with the opening of the extension(s). Cards84664 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cards is correct about the extension names - by every indication, those will be the official names. Sunday service does use the different name (see the map). BART is very inconsistent about whether they capitalize "line", too. Hopefully they will fully transition to color names soon - they've started to use those in press releases and on trains. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got distracted by Southern California but the module is live now: Module:Adjacent stations/BART. Mackensen (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Looks great! What are the red dots in the edit window - are they equal to HTML #8203 (zero-width space)? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I believe so, yes, that might be some new rendering or some such. Mackensen (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for semi-protection for this article at WP:RfPP – this IP has all the hallmarks of the persistent "Toronto transit" vandal. (IIRC, this IP vandal's been around for years, though dormant until recently...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aka, I had it right the first time. My bad. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 03:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it confused me at first too! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does lead to a question of how do you handle that. Most announcements treat the ceremonial on August 5 as the beginning. I like the keydates given the lousiness of infobox station, but I don't want to put separate entries for August 5 and August 6. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 03:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would just put the 6th. Ceremonial trains that aren't in revenue service are worth noting in the article about the train itself (as I have), but they're not really relevant to the stations themselves.

I can't say I'm fond of the keydates - there's too much of a risk of scope creep, and they tend to make infoboxes long. My personal opinion is that it's better just to have open/close/rebuild dates in their existing infobox fields, and leave the rest to the article body. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a firm supporter of getting agents closed into Infobox station. Almost every station has a date for that and I feel it's relevant to the article. Unfortunately, I'm not the best coder in the world and haven't figured out how to do this correctly on my own. (A majority of my keydates are stations razed or agents removed.) Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 03:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree - it's worth a sentence in the article, but not so important that it should be listed in the infobox. (Similarly, I don't think that destruction of the building is worth including, except for structures like Penn Station where the destruction itself is notable.) The infobox should give the most important station important for a general audience; a general audience has no idea what the agency was, and is likely more interested in the closure date than the demolition date. When in doubt, a shorter and uncluttered infobox is better. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the NWP and not the NSR, then it's in the wrong place and/or page. Useddenim (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a confusing situation, for sure. The NSR was one of a number of railroads that were merged into the NWP. The interurban lines (which operated primarily during the period where the NSR was part of the NWP) were built mostly on what had been the NSR, but represented only a small percent of its original mileage.

The best solution is to move the interurban section to a separate article (as it's a topic worthy of a full article), and have the template there. I'll plan to do that tomorrow. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: I've now created Northwestern Pacific Railroad interurban lines and moved the template there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Useddenim (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I go if admins keep ignoring my block requests regarding 108.16.53.147? ANI? Cards84664 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed an AIV report because of the rate of disruptive editing; that should hopefully get a block on this specific IP within the next few hours.

It may be that we keep having to play whack-a-mole until they get bored and go do something else. Since the IPs used have been widely separated and there have only been a few accounts, a rangeblock may not be possible for now. @Mackensen: Do you have any ideas? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs are pretty dispersed; we'd be talking multiple range-blocks with a risk of collateral damage. If it were easy it probably would have been done by now. Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Market and Battery used by the F Market & Wharves today the same Market and Battery used by MUNI as the first stop west of the San Francisco Transbay Terminal until 1982? Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. The stops were rebuilt in the early 90s IIRC, but more or less the same location. The F stops are mostly the same as the pre-1982 stops, albeit with a few differences. The stops around 5th Street may have been slightly different, and I think the F is missing former stops at 10th, Octavia, and maybe Franklin. I'll see if anyone I know out here is sure. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I just saw that you were the one that removed the diagram image in the Orange Line rolling stock table that I added in. I'm just wondering why. It's standard practice to have similar diagrams in other rail articles such as Tramlink and Great Western Railway (train operating company). VulcanTrekkie45 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely a British thing - American articles generally don't have the side view diagrams, and I don't think there's any real reason to. The section already has several photos of the same rolling stock; a tiny thumbnail diagram doesn't add much. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Northwestern Pacific Railroad interurban lines 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! Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for adding the exceptional image of Hammels Wye that you took! Keep up the great work.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Pure luck getting that shot on approach to JFK. I didn't get a lot of picture opportunities on the NYC leg of that trip, though I did have the rear railfan window on a New Haven Line train. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great shots of The Raunt and Goose Creek as well. Where were you coming from?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The July 24 shots were on approach to JFK from OAK, and then from JFK to BOS. August 2 shots were flying from JFK to SFO. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northwestern Pacific Railroad interurban lines, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Northwestern Pacific Railroad interurban lines were the first use of third rail electrification in California? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northwestern Pacific Railroad interurban lines. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Northwestern Pacific Railroad interurban lines), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has a name: [1]. We've already an article on the Valley Flyer, a short-lived ATSF train between Bakersfield and Oakland. Page views doubled in the last day, probably folks looking for information about the Amtrak train. Redirect to New Haven–Springfield Shuttle for now, or standalone article? Mackensen (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created Valley Flyer (Amtrak train) as a redirect for now. I don't think a standalone article is yet justified; Amtrak booking uses "Shuttle" for those trains, and the Amtrak website doesn't have the schedule yet. I'll try to update the relevant articles by the 30th. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bellows Falls station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1.02 editor -- 1.02 editor (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bellows Falls station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bellows Falls station for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1.02 editor -- 1.02 editor (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already booked travel, it's this weekend. ex-Melbourne 916 is expected to have its debut run as a shuttle between Don Chee/Steuart and Pier 39 on Sunday: https://www.streetcar.org/heritage-weekend-details-here/ Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I should be in town this weekend and be able to come by. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bellows Falls station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bellows Falls station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1.02 editor -- 1.02 editor (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept for the sake of compromise "no need to specify cuts elsewhere on the line" even though they do impact destinations reachable from the station. On the other hand as I've said on the talk page, this edit is not quite acurate: " the Green Mountain Flyer, Mount Royal, and Minuteman - on both the Boston–Troy mainline and the Cheshire Branch." These are not the same line. The first two cited trains went northwestly on the Cheshire branch towards Vermont; the Minute Man, the third mentioned train was not on the Cheshire Branch, but was on the Fitchburg Division, Boston–Troy mainline, in the northwest part of Massachusetts towards North Adams, Hoosick Falls and Troy.Dogru144 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you just made looks fine. Can you fill in any other parameters to the Official Guide citation (like publisher, page number, isbn, etc)? When adding references to a page with existing citation templates, you should always use matching templates rather than plain text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article International (Amtrak train) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ComplexRational -- ComplexRational (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article International (Amtrak train) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:International (Amtrak train) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ComplexRational -- ComplexRational (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to visit the old Harvard/Brattle and Harvard/Holyoke stations. How do I get access? How do i get in? Pilot0674 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard/Brattle was demolished in 1983 after the modern Harvard station opened. Harvard/Holyoke is located inside the tunnel and only accessible by employees, but it can be seen from passing trains. Please do some basic google searches next time. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi. I noticed you reverted a lot of old and new edits about Pierce Boston, many of which had been uncontroversial for a long time. Could we be more surgical about which parts of the content you think are promotional, and we'll get it right together? Thanks, -Tom TBMilnes (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)TBMilnes[reply]

@TBMilnes: I removed only content that was in violation of core Wikipedia content policies. That includes not only WP:NPOV (articles must be neutral in tone and not promotional), but also WP:V and WP:RS (information in articles must be verifiable by citations to reliable, independent sources.) I have re-deleted this material; do not re-add it until you add additional citations and make the language neutral in tone. That includes the overly-detailed descriptions of the amenities, which reads like advertising copy. Additionally, if you have a close connection to the building - such as a financial connection, or if you live there - please read WP:COI. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Could you work with me to get the content that you removed into a form that you feel is consistent with Wikipedia standards? I believe all of the information that you deleted is verifiable. It is also similar in tenor and scope to the pages that exist for other tall buildings in Boston, like Millennium Tower, Four Seasons Hotel & Private Residences, One Dalton Street, 200 Clarendon Street (formerly John Hancock Tower), and Prudential Tower. All of those pages contain notations on prominent architectural and amenity features and/or information on tenants.

I don't want to start an editing war together so rather than undoing your deletions I left it as is and am asking you to meet me halfway and take a crack at changing it to a neutral tone. I'm happy to find some additional references online. Citing information that can be verified by a pedestrian on the sidewalk or by Google Street View seems superfluous to me; does Wikipedia disagree? Most of the deleted content falls into that category. But for any sentence that you think needs an explicit citation, let me know and I'll find one. If you are not willing to work together that's okay too, but in that event can we agree to put the deleted content out to the community for a consensus?

Finally, I read the WP:COI and don't believe there is an issue in this case. I'm sure you've ridden the MBTA on occasion, creating a financial relationship between you and the MBTA, but I'm sure your primary role in your many MBTA-related contributions is to further the interests of Wikipedia as a subject-matter expert. I'm in a similar boat with this page. Thanks in advance for any help you're willing to give. -TBMilnes (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)TBMilnes[reply]

If the information is verifiable, then please add citations to reliable sources. WP:OR - another core policy - does not allow personal observations and other original research. So yes, Wikipedia explicitly disagrees. Most of the other articles you linked have their information cited to reliable sources, and the tone is more neutral. Architectural information and notable tenants can be included in the article, but it must be cited - note that I did not remove information that had a source. (Non-notable tenants do not need to be named - describing them as "three restaurants" or whatnot is more useful.)

My aim here is not to cut down the article - it is merely to bring it in line with Wikipedia policies. If you are willing to put in the effort to improve the article in line with policy, I can help guide you. But per WP:V, [t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Actually, I don't think your analysis of citation requirements is correct. To quote your WP:OR reference, The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.[a] And the footnote [a] clarifies that By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. So, as long as a reliable source like Google Maps or online images exists for statements that an observer on the ground can see then it's okay, right? Citations are helpful for facts that may be surprising or controversial, or to aid the reader in locating a hard-to-find source. That's were the burden to demonstrate verifiability [that] lies with the editor comes in to play. But your deletion of material simply because it lacks a source, yet is readily verifiable by intuitive means, strikes me as too bold. If you take verifiable exception to a single item's notability, then why not reword that one sentence rather than delete the whole subsection? TBMilnes (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)TBMilnes[reply]

No, that's not a correct interpretation. Google Maps and other imagery is not considered to be a reliable source for the vast majority of purposes. And most of what I removed from the article was details like cost and number of floors, which cannot be determined by imagery or your "intuitive means". If you're not willing to put in the bare minimum effort to add actual citations to the article, then don't get offended when someone like me removes the questionable text. It's that simple. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Could you please provide me with a reference backing up this claim: Google Maps and other imagery is not considered to be a reliable source for the vast majority of purposes.? It is inconsistent with the Wikipedia policy I cited above so if you are going to assert it as your position you should recognize the meta-obligation of citing a source for it :). Thank you. -Tom

WP:RS/P. And as I said before, the vast majority of what I removed cannot be found on Google Maps in the first place. At this point, I can only assume that you don't actually care about the article - as you have not yet added a single source - and merely wish to be pedantic. Good day. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I'm not trying to be a pedant, I'm just trying to better understand your points and thinking. As to your last edits, can you help me understand why you removed the ArchBoston link as a "non-RS?" I know it's a forum, but it contains numerous photos of the facade and mechanical penthouse and if you search the thread you'll find several user comments (good and bad) about how the mechanical penthouse stands out visually, which all together support the text without drawing any "conclusion not stated by the sources," and so this strikes me as one of the exceptional cases where forum citation and summary is permitted WP:OR. Can you also please help me understand why you removed one of the photos? Finally, you removed some information this time that you had not removed in your previous edits; what was your thinking there? Thanks. --TBMilnes (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, forums and other user-generated content like ArchBoston are not considered reliable sources (see WP:UGC). There are no "exceptional cases" where they magically become reliable, and the architectural style of yet another luxury condo tower for techies is not nearly important enough to justify any kind of loophole. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535:In point of fact WP:UGC reads, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable." "Generally unacceptable" implies that there are in fact exceptions, otherwise it would read "always unacceptable." I also don't believe that your stereotyping the building as a "tower for techies" is a fair or accurate representation of the residents, and even if it was I don't think your personal political opinions on the topic are appropriate here. But lets leave those parts alone. For now can you please 1) help me understand why you removed one of the photos? And 2) why you removed some information this last time that you had not removed in your previous edits? TBMilnes (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GALLERY, Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. (The fireworks photo also added nothing of value to the article.) As for the content, I must have noticed some uncited and/or irrelevant prose that I missed before. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you revered recent edits I had made (though I was not at the time logged in) to Readville, which stated that trains may stop at there between Hyde Park and Route 128, was reverted, as you've stated this isn't particularly useful. I'd like to take the time to see if it's possible to discuss why; I had made the edit due to the platforms being kept for service disruptions in a manner similar to (though used less often than) the Haverhill Line platform at Oak Grove in Malden. While these platforms are used less often than the one at Oak Grove, it seems like the use case is similar, especially due to the MBTA's Rail Vision alternatives listing the possibility of having an urban rail line to Route 128 (with a stop @ Readville) with possible plans 4, 5, & 6, which would need to be routed through the Northeast Corridor.

I'm still trying to figure out what ways I can best improve information regarding transportation in greater Boston, as it's an area I travel in and use frequently. If there's any input you could give, I would greatly appreciate it. Pokemonred200 (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokemonred200: It's definitely a judgement call. Given how infrequently the NEC platforms are used at Readville, I just don't think it's important enough to put in an already-very-long infobox. As you noted, Oak Grove is used vastly more often due to the rapid transit transfer, including for an entire year in the mid-1980s. While it is entirely possible that Readville will be reactivated as a full-time NEC stop under electrification, we're still years out from even the most conceptual service plans. (There's zero chance of local service to 128 via the NEC, though - those slots will be swallowed instantly by increases in Amtrak and Providence service - but Readville may be used as a transfer point.)

I've made some inroads on Boston transportation, primarily MBTA topics, but there's still much to do. What are you interested in - finding citations, copyediting, taking pictures, archive research, ...? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I'm mostly into taking pictures (such as this photo of Lechmere under construction on December 28th, 2019) and finding citations, as well as updating articles with information for upcoming changes (as seen with the MBTA's recent announcement that College Avenue Station is going to be named 'Medford/Tufts' when it opens). I travel the system, take pictures, and read updates frequently, so I feel like this puts that into good use.

(Also, regarding the Urban Rail line to Route 128 w/ a stop @ Readville, rereading the system map provided in their documents led me to notice this would use the Fairmount line. While some news articles state that the MBTA has voted to pursue electrification pilots (including the Urban Rail over the Fairmount Line), I had noticed during my most recent trip to Providence that the Fairmount line connects to Readville after the NEC/Franklin tracks have already diverged from one another, so if the regional service to 128 via the Fairmount Line sees the light of day, it wouldn't use the NEC platforms regardless. Pokemonred200 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I highly encourage you to place photos you take - especially of ongoing construction (I'm only in the area a few times a year) - on Wikimedia Commons. That way, we can use them in articles here. If you're interested in an area that could really use more citations, the history/governance/financing of the various RTAs (WRTA, LRTA, etc) is currently very thinly covered. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]