User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from June 2016 (the end of Archive 6) to March 2017. 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.

The succession does not work for Amtrak's Palmetto. Could you fix that. If that is true it needs to be added to other stations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Palmetto (train) should be cleaned up too. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody is fixing other stations. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like Amtrak added five local stops last October. I'll go through and check, and add a citation about the additions, and fix the RDT. Other than that, the Palmetto is pretty out of my interest area (and I'm swamped with North Philadelphia and North Broad) so I can't say I'll spend a lot of time on the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Secondarywaltz: I've done what I can for now; let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Philadelphia station (Amtrak and SEPTA Regional Rail) 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 AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand that this may be a good idea to get rid of this trivia. Only thing is, this does exist on other NYC Subway Rolling Stock pages. I removed all differences sections on these pages for you. I do agree that this is a good idea since the se differences are not proven with sources. Davidng913 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shore Line East you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shore Line East 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 Nazcheema -- Nazcheema (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of James Laurie 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! Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested a refinement to the hook. It does adds quite a bit of text, so I have explained my reasoning on the DYK nomination page. Could you please have a look and leave a response there. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow managed to click revert when I meant to click thanks on your recent LIRR edits. I was reluctant to mess with the template, but that was the right solution.--agr (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! When I saw the notification I figured it was either an accident or I'd interrupted you making a different edit. I made a couple edits to {{MNRR stations}} that should make it work with the bare parameter (i.e. {{MNRR stations|Milford}}) as well, and I believe I have the CDOT and Amtrak templates (MBTA was already converted) working as well. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Philadelphia station (Amtrak and SEPTA Regional Rail) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:North Philadelphia station (Amtrak and SEPTA Regional Rail) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, the gauntlet's been thrown down: [1]. There's more to come, but it's a start. Alas, I can't confirm Sanders' claim of a 72–73 edition of the Las Vegas Fun Train. Mackensen (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Laurie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that James Laurie proposed an elevated railroad over Broadway in 1853, fifteen years before New York City's first such line was built? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Laurie. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, James Laurie), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line 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/Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shore Line East, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Shore Line East service (train pictured) began in 1990, using equipment from the recently discontinued PATrain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shore Line East. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Shore Line East), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article North Philadelphia station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Châteauesque design of the North Philadelphia station (pictured) ushered in the use of Beaux-Arts architecture in railway stations in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/North Philadelphia station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, North Philadelphia station), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New London Union 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article New London Union 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:New London Union Station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the talk section, I've added some notes about why I flagged the article Tylr00 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Tylr00 Tylr00 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned the difficulty in photographing the Capt. Mark Stoddard Farmstead on my talk page. If you haven't noticed, a photo supposedly of it has been scored by the inimitable KLOTZ. Magic♪piano 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I saw, and that does indeed appear to be it. Thanks for making sure I knew! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article New London Union Station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New London Union 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi.1415926535, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article New London Union Station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New London Union Station (pictured) was the largest, last, and—according to biographer Henry-Russell Hitchcock—"best" railroad station designed by Henry Hobson Richardson? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New London Union Station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, New London Union Station), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction on the New London station page. I'd asked someone in the talk page more familiar with it to make it a bit more clear about the Shore Line East, but was ignored. As someone not from there, I wanted to understand it better, but wanted someone else to make the clarification, so I'm happy that someone corrected my own. I think what would make it even clearer is to maintain consistency by using the track number (track 1, track 2) to refer to the various different platforms (high-level and low-level) as opposed to north and south-bound, but that's just a suggestion. --Criticalthinker (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I had {{New London Union Station}} - which I just added to the article - on the back burner, but I forgot to reply on the talk page. I think NB and SB are more intuitive for readers to understand than just track numbers, but I could be convinced otherwise. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say tracks instead of directions as there is a line in my state that runs north to south. The "left" track" is actually the northbound track and the "right" track heads southbound, the opposite of what one would assume. Double-tracked railways don't always follow the directions we apply to roads. If you identify the tracks by number you can always use the cardinal directions (west/south and east/north) to identify them once you identify the number. More than that, though, it becomes problematic to identify by north and southbound when you have more than two tracks, as is the case even at the New London station. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just saw the page and that you made a really helpful track layout. What template is that, exactly? I'd like to make my own for stations in my state. It seems kind of complicated, but I could play around with it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Criticalthinker: I'll let conversation about the station itself play out on the article talk page, but as for the template: it's just a fairly basic route diagram template with a little bit of wrapper code for use outside an infobox. I would recommend also looking at {{routemap}}; the syntax is a bit harder to grasp but it's gradually replacing the BS-map templates that I used. Routemap generally displays better on mobile devices and allows some more complex text overlays; it's not an issue here but for very large maps it also loads faster. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired by your {{New London Union Station}} to attempt {{Springfield Union Station (Massachusetts)}} (there's an article on the station in this quarter's PTJ as well). Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I like it. I've been putting off doing a full overhaul of that article for a while - it'll probably be close to as long as NLC when I really finish with what I can do. A couple quick thoughts / possible additions, some of which I may be able to do myself:

• Add a north arrow, since it's almost exactly 45 degrees angled from north
• Add 'to Worcester' and 'to Albany' notes for the Berkshire Subdivision
• Add the bridge over the CT River, since it's right there
• Add these crossovers to make it more clear that the two NHV-SPG Line tracks are connected. Maybe add the mail facility as well - that was discussed as a possible replacement station site a few years back, so it might be good to have it notated.
• Use the marker arrows to better distinguish the two stations, and the CT River Line from the NHV-SPG Line
• Once the high-levels are in service, we should color-code them as I did with NLC

Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I implemented some changes. I should get a chance to see all the renovations in person in June, if not sooner. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pi. I'm contacting you to follow-up on the RfC on userspace protection that you participated in. After a discussion at T149445, it looks like a filter is a better approach to implementing these changes. We're developing some language for a message that editors will see when the filter is triggered. Comments and suggestions on this message are welcome at the talk page. Take care, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to wonder if we need a WP:LTA section on this guy. He's been around for at least a year and a half; the only saving grace is that his edits are so over-the-top that they're pretty easy to identify and revert. Mackensen (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I hadn't realized they'd been around a while - I've only noticed them in the last few weeks. If you file an SPI or LTA case I'll help with it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was good to see you at the recent Wikimedia meetup. To follow up on some of the issues you raised, I note that the articles Commuter rail; Regional rail; Regional railroad; and Commuter rail in North America and corresponding articles for Australia and the UK all exist, partially unaware of each other and lacking some dab links. There is also List of suburban and commuter rail systems and Passenger rail terminology, the latter of which attempts to codify and explain the differences in usage of related terminology in different countries. There may also be other quasi-related articles I haven't come across yet. At present, I don't have any strongly-held opinions about what can be done to improve the situation, and am very interested in your ideas and your comments.

My initial inclination is to crosslink them with dab hatnotes, to at least alert editors and readers to the existence of the other articles. This also might trigger a round of discussion and editing to consolidate or reorganize the articles. Such a phenomenon occurred after I created the Template: HVAC to gather together the motley overlapping constellation of articles related to that subject. I also did a similar thing by overhauling Template: Toilets, which triggered a greater awareness of related or overlapping articles, and a surge of related editing. I am holding off on adding the hatnotes in this case until I hear what, if anything, you might have to say about this. Respectfully, Reify-tech (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I noticed this on my watch list and would like to join the discussion. I took a look at the articles involved and agree that work is needed, but I think it is mostly straight forward editing. I took a swipe at Passenger rail terminology to clarify the situation in North America and added a "see also" link at Regional railroad, which needs updating anyway (9 year old data). Adding a section on North America or the United States to the long country list in Regional rail would be the next step, I think.--agr (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the speedy deletion tag, do you think that this page is copyright violation. David Dylan (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Dylan: One section, which I have now removed, was still a copyright violation. Your aggressive behavior, attempts to take absolute control of the page, and poor grammar do not leave me particularly hopeful for the article at the moment. I hope you will prove me wrong. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(David Dylan (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)) Ok. I am now leaving the page for good, and others can take care of it. Nothing is up to me now (David Dylan (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Could I get you to have a look at Talk:Superliner (railcar)#First Empire Builder with Superliners?. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig link fixed, no need to revert a good change with one error. In fact this was the third template today that needed fixing. And I have fixed many templates before after an edit from you. The Banner talk 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I occasionally make errors with disambig links; there's a lot of Amtrak stations with similar names. I appreciate your efforts to fix them; however, it would have been better practice to fix them by adding the disambiguation directly in {{amtk}} as I just did, rather than reverting an entire large edit back to conventional links. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The better option is that you check where you are linking to. A useful help is a small addition to your personal CSS (under preferences >> Appearance)

/* visualisation of redirects and links disambiguation pages */ .mw-redirect { background-color:#F5DEB3; } .mw-disambig { background-color:#AFEEEE; }

It gives redirects and links to disambiguation pages a distinctive, easy recognisable background colour. The Banner talk 20:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the editor interaction utility, yesterday was the first time you have fixed any links I have created. If you wish to insult my editing, I would appreciate if your insults are correct. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was no insult, and your assumption is incorrect. But if you want war, perfect. Try somebody else. The Banner talk 21:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want war; I would like to get along. You may wish to consider softening your tone when first communicating with editors; "And I have fixed many templates before after an edit from you" comes across as somewhat accusatory. Can you look at the list of pages we've both edited and tell me what templates you've previously fixed my edits on? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are railway stations inherently notable? I noticed your thread at WikiProject Trains on GT stations. I'm asking concerning the former GT station in Vicksburg, Michigan. I'm not 100% sure but it's my belief that it was a union station with the Grand Rapids and Indiana. Some of my relatives were instrumental in its preservation and I'd love to see it have an article on Wikipedia. It currently serves as the anchor point of a replica village development by the Vicksburg Historical Society. Unfortunately I now live far away and cannot do much research on it. Any advice? John from Idegon (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: General consensus and results from AfD indicate that mainline railway stations are more or less inevitably notable. Especially if service continued into the modern era or (as here) the station is still intact, there tends to be enough public interest, railroad documentation, and press coverage that notability is pretty easy to establish. Unfortunately that side of the Grand Trunk is rather outside my expertise, so I don't think I'd be able to help you much. It does appear that it was a union station, and I managed to find an early postcard image of the station to get you started. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pi.1415926535. I have been working over the past week or so on articles on commuter rail in Connecticut. I have added information to the Hartford Line page, as well as adding a significant amount of information to the Barnum (Metro-North station) page. I also created the Orange (Metro-North station). Your feedback would be appreciated.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed! You're doing a great job, and I really appreciate it. When I get a change, I'm going to finish doing the history of the SLE and Hartford Line stations. As far as Orange, I would recommend adding some history of Woodmont station, which existed nearby until 1927. Tyler City Station has a good writeup; while it's self published, it's meticulously researched from primary sources and can be considered reliable. I may be able to snag images of the old station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for writing the histories for all of these articles. If I have time, I will add information from there.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi.1415926535. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Just so you know.  :-) Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wedgemere (MBTA 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Wedgemere (MBTA station) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wedgemere (MBTA 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You objected to the proposed deletion of List of GO Transit stations. I still believe it requires deletion, and as such, I have escalated this to a listing in articles for deletion; please see the discussion here. Thanks. --Natural R_X 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ayer (MBTA 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:Ayer (MBTA station) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viridiscalculus -- Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]