User talk:Trainsandotherthings/Archive 6

Hey, I’ve somewhat recently remade C&NW 1385’s page from scratch, with more reliable sources, but I wasn’t sure if that “more citations needed” banner still needs to be there or not. I really hate to ask you this admittedly naive question, but could you look over the page and tell me if that banner can be removed or not, depending on what I did for the page? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Someone who likes train writing: I was worried for a moment when I saw "March 2023" on my talk page, as that's the same heading Twinkle uses for automated warnings! But to answer your question, the article is now obviously well cited enough that the banner is unneeded, and I've removed it. Generally, if an article has no uncited paragraphs, that banner can go (assuming sources are reliable). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that. Also, sorry if I had you terrified. Next time I message someone on Wikipedia, I’ll go back to using random titles, instead of Sus-looking dates like this one. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Haha, no harm done. Something like "quick question" would suffice. I've only gotten a twinkle warning once in my almost 2 years here, hoping it stays that way. If you have a question or comment about something else, you're always welcome here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you planning on AFD'ing other flag stops along Via Rail lines? I just noticed that most have been around since 2010 with single-sentence writing. Cards84664 19:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I was planning to do a mass AfD for all the flag stops on that particular line with no indication of any sort of notability, yes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cards84664 17:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Aoidh (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for Branford Steam Railroad, about a short (about 6 miles in length) industrial railroad in Connecticut with a surprisingly long and storied history. The Branford Steam Railroad started operations in 1903 to carry passengers to a trotting park for horses. Within a decade, it transformed into an industrial shortline hauling trap rock from quarries. The company has hauled trap rock from the same quarry since 1914 to today, and plans are that it will continue this task for at least the next 200 years. The "Steam Railroad" has not used steam locomotives since 1960, but the seemingly absurd name is necessary since the Branford Electric Railway also exists to this day as a museum preserving streetcars." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey guys thanks for the welcome sorry I made a mistake earlier hope you can help me as a co-editor on the Wiki. Greetings, I hope you are safe and healthy, thank you Historian128 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And a shoutout from a railfan in Northampton, who'll week after next take the Lake Shore Limited for the first time to a vacation in Niagara Falls! Ravenswing 01:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Glad to hear you enjoyed the article, I really put a lot of work into it! Hope you have an enjoyable vacation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the TFA, lovingly introduced: "The Providence and Worcester Railroad was formed in 1844 to connect its namesake cities. This was accomplished in 1847, and it continued running trains until it was leased by the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad in 1889, which was itself leased by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad (The New Haven) in 1892. For most companies, that would be the end of the story, and the holder of the lease would inevitably buy out the company being leased. But the P&W was different. Thanks to some peculiar rules in its original 1844 charter protecting the interests of smaller shareholders, the New Haven couldn't get hold of enough shares to merge the company. It continued to exist for 85 years under lease, and the New Haven tolerated having to pay the P&W shareholders dividends, until the New Haven (which went bankrupt in 1961 and never recovered) was merged into Penn Central in 1969.

Penn Central did not want the P&W, but the Interstate Commerce Commission felt otherwise and ordered its inclusion in the merger, in spite of PC threatening to abandon the P&W's tracks. Penn Central would suffer the share rules no longer and demanded they be rewritten so it could take control and absorb the P&W. Instead, P&W's shareholders voted to terminate the lease entirely and take over their own railroad again. To PC's shock, the ICC agreed, and P&W was made independent on February 3, 1973. Starting with roughly 55 miles of tracks, P&W rapidly grew into a major railroad by buying lines from other, larger companies that couldn't operate them profitably, and doing just that (making a profit). It also purchased several shortline railroads outright. Today, P&W owns or has operating rights on 612 miles of tracks in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York. It was purchased by shortline holding company Genesee & Wyoming in 2016, but continues as before with few changes (apart from G&W orange slowly replacing P&W's brown and red on its locomotives). P&W has shown it's possible to run freight rail profitably in New England, despite the departure of much of the region's former industry which doomed so many other railroads. P&W is set to continue to succeed where many others have failed for the foreseeable future."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you were looking for other projects, Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania), Kinzua Bridge, and Union Station (Erie, Pennsylvania) have all been abandoned since Niagara retired, are within your general area of interest, and need a new steward. No pressure, but I thought you might like to know. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Funny you mention Kinzua Bridge, I've actually had that one on my watchlist since 2021. Just added the other two. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this article needs major work. I plan on researching it when I can, I think people confuse this with South Reading Branch Railroad which both originated in the same spot (Salem). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Do you have a copy of Ronald Dale Karr's The Rail Lines of Southern New England? The second edition was published in 2017, it's basically my bible for any railroad in southern New England (and you can probably see I've worked on a lot of these railroads so far, but there's many more that need work). I'm going to add some information and citations to Essex Railroad probably today or tomorrow using this book. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sadly I don't (it sounds like a great book though!). I can look up other sources using google books for contemporary sources that might also be useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

•   Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
•   Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
•   Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
•   BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
•   FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by   Sammi Brie,   Thebiguglyalien,   MyCatIsAChonk,   PCN02WPS, and   AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe this article needs to exist somehow; the event is notable as the worst accident in the history of the Central Railroad of New Jersey. I rewrote the majority of material from the source already, however you seem to think it isn’t enough. The article shouldn’t be deleted it just needs work SurferSquall (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@SurferSquall: [1] I rest my case. You copied it from another source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is a public source from the State of New Jersey, it’s public domain SurferSquall (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Works of the U.S. federal government are public domain. That does not extend to works created by the State of New Jersey. And regardless, you just lifted it from hmdb so you've violated copyright either way. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

And, if you look at the image, it was actually created by the government of Hunterdon County, New Jersey so you would need to demonstrate the county has released such works into the public domain. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m curious now, I’ll email someone from the county and come back with their response if I get one SurferSquall (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It gets a few sentences in Lowenthal's "Iron Mine Railroads of Northern New Jersey". With one fatality (the head brakeman), the idea that this was "the worst accident in history of the Central Railroad of New Jersey" is not plausible; consider the 1958 Newark Bay rail accident. I don't think there's a real need for this as a standalone article, but it's worth a more prominent mention in High Bridge Branch. Choess (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware of the Newark accident, however I still would like to write this article. There shouldn’t be a problem with it if I take the time to write it myself, no? SurferSquall (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a problem if it's not notable enough for a dedicated article, and a collision with one fatality is rather unlikely to be notable enough. Though based on your past behavior you will attempt to write the article regardless of what anyone tells you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s a genuine question! I’m not trying to argue. SurferSquall (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There's not going to be a copyright problem, but I think it's very likely that the community would find consensus that such an article should be merged to High Bridge Branch. I think it would be better to write a description of the accident within that article rather than as a new article. Choess (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

How much detail would be appropriate for such a section? SurferSquall (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Finally got around to cleaning up that article that I mentioned on leeky's talk page. Since you already did some work on it, you might wanna take a look at my revision. Derpytoucan (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Derpytoucan: I wouldn't really call my reverts "work" per se. Your changes look like a clear improvement to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Trainsandotherthings, I noticed that you reverted an edit I made on the Trains (magazine) article and wanted to ask you about it.

I had removed the link to the larger territorial unit in "Waukesha, Wisconsin" (i.e., Wisconsin) because MOS:GEOLINK says "generally do not link the larger unit." You commented that "a city and state linked together is literally a permissible example at MOS:GEOLINK."

It's interesting because the first examples in MOS:LINKSTYLE are actually city/state links, with technical explanations for using direct and piped links. That kind of leads back nicely to your "literally permissible" reference. But then, in MOS:GEOLINK, after stating that the larger unit should not be linked ("generally," is possibly a key word or at least introduces some ambiguity), city/state and city/state/country examples are provided stating to avoid linking the full chain (the examples with the big red X marks) and to instead not link the larger territorial unit (the examples with the big green check marks).

Is this an instance where the MOS provides contradictory direction, just an edge case that only people like me venture in to, or am I misreading/misinterpreting the manual of style in this instance?

I see that you've been around for a while and would really appreciate your input. Please advise.

Thanks,

Edward Bednar (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Edward Bednar: the thing with the MOS is it wasn't written by one person. It was developed by the community over the two decades of Wikipedia's existence. This means it absolutely can contradict itself in places.

I think you may be misinterpreting what GEOLINK says. What I'm reading it as saying is: do not use "Atlanta, Georgia". Notice that Atlanta and Georgia are separate links. GEOLINK tells us not to do this because of MOS:SEAOFBLUE concerns. What this does not mean is that the larger geographic unit cannot be in a link at all. This means that Waukesha, Wisconsin (note, this is one link) is not contrary to GEOLINK, but Waukesha, Wisconsin (two links) would be. GEOLINK helpfully displays to us the exact wikitext in the examples to make it possible to understand what is meant. There's no benefit to pulling the string "Wisconsin" out of the wikilink to the Waukesha article - it's part of the page title, after all. The format in the Trains magazine article was Waukesha, Wisconsin, as one link, so it's not violating GEOLINK. If there was also a link to Wisconsin separately, then it would be in violation of GEOLINK.

Don't worry about hang ups over MOS too much. If anyone tells you they know every bit of the MOS, they're lying. Also note the language used: "generally do not link the larger unit" (emphasis added). This intentionally leaves room for editors to make exceptions when deemed necessary by editorial judgement (for the record I don't think this is a case where GEOLINK should be ignored). If a blanket ban were intended, the MOS would make that explicit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.

Another question, now: When there are three units (e.g., Waukesha, Wisconsin, United States), should the first two be linked separately or just with one link? Or is that an either/or scenario?

I guess one more question, while I've got you, is how should abbreviation be handled with geographic locations? I see a lot of articles where the state or country is abbreviated (e.g., Waukesha, WI). Other than consistency within the article, is there a guideline for that, given that we're more familiar in the US with our state abbreviations than people who are not in/from the US?

Thanks again.

Edward Bednar (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

If it's city, state, country, you can leave the country out of the link entirely. It would still be Waukesha, Wisconsin, United States. Generally we do not link the names of contemporary nation-states. There are some rules about abbreviations as well: see MOS:NOTUSA specifically for the U.S. and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations for general usage. But don't try and memorize everything, you'll drive yourself crazy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The article Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad for comments about the article, and Talk:Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice work on this one! I've got another 20 to 30 photos of the abandoned line from March to upload. I hope you won't be offended if I give myself partial credit for the GA (just in my personal listing - it's all yours for the Wikicup.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No objections on my part, you helped out a good amount. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I try not to let the craziness get to me and keep writing/improving articles rather than go crazy in project space. But I hate seeing bullying and that's why I reacted so strongly at the situation with those improper quickfails. I worry how many awful reviews like these slip by without anyone else noticing or commenting, especially in the post-Coldwelling Wikipedia we now edit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I closed that ANI thread since it didn't seem to be attracting much additional commentary. EK hasn't edited since it opened. I suspect from his last posts that he won't be returning to GAN any time soon, but if you or AirshipJungleman29 notice further disruption, feel free to ping me and I can un-eff the relevant GAN pages, and open another ANI thread or issue a partial block if needed. Ajpolino (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fore River Railroad 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Your FAs almost certainly weren't attacked. I mean, were they? No one gets irate about train stations. Seriously. Train stations are calm and placid... I wish you could see my face as I type this, because I am smiling calmly. Not sarcastic or negative in any way. Just noting a fact. PS the article about Earth is looking kinda crappy these days, and the word count in your essay is a little outdated. Thanks! § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason I mention battle ground mentality is in part because in my experience observing your editing, you always have to reply to every single comment and get in the last word. Even if you're not intending aggression at all, it can come away like that to other editors. It is an important skill to be able to get your opinions across without it becoming bludgeoning. Also, I did not pick you out specifically (I'm not thrilled with one or two of the things buidhe has said either), and the fact that you felt the need to come here and defend yourself anyways is kind of telling. No one gets irate about train stations You're wrong on that unfortunately, considering disputes over train stations led to comments such as "As I have said, given his appalling attitude and obvious superiority complex, I have no desire to have any further contact with Trainsandotherthings." and plenty of bad blood and hurt feelings. It is a bit funny seeing people with no good or featured content (not you, obviously) unironically accuse me of spending most of my time deleting things, when my record on article creation is easily accessible.

I've gotten a bit off topic, but anyways this is clearly sarcastic. FAC tends to get editors riled up (and I've been guilty of that), but when people perceive a nomination or nominator as contentious or argumentative they are much less likely to want to participate. I get that you have some sorts of difference of opinion with buidhe, but the way you're expressing it right now isn't productive in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Alas, in the context of a past FAC, I was existentially puzzled how anyone could say that a cyclone is not a storm. Seriously. Confused. Puzzled. Like hitting my head against a brick wall. Genuinely. And that is what has led me to disregard what Buidhe says. In my mind, from the only explanations I can imagine, the only explanations are ones that do not lead to productive collaboration. Is my perception.. the bit about "in my mind"... wrong? Certainly possible. But alas, then she/he followed my GAN reviews and corrected me. Does she/he do that to other people too? Perhaps. If I misjudged the cyclone/storm, and then misjudged the "correcting my GAN reviews", then I have serially misjudged. I do know, from another Wikipedian, that the sudden, immediate ambush of my current FAC is something that he/she does often, so... but still, none of this inspires trust. Especially after I was extremely polite when I went to his/her talk page and asked him/her not to participate... and got ambushed. Freaking immediately.

I've only been back a short while, and am already world-weary of WP... please see Sisyphus.

If you want to see how I feel, see my talk page. But it will probably only convince you that I am a bitter idiot, which perhaps I am. Or perhaps not. Perhaps only one or two people have actually done me wrong, and so I see wrong-doers at every turn. But Buidhe has made it quite difficult for me not to see a wrong-doer.

That's all. Sorry. Thanks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The winners of the 2023 The Core Contest are announced 🎉. We had an amazing set of improvements this year, and the judges (Femke, Aza24 and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners.

• First place goes to Buidhe for improving The Holocaust; very core, highly relevant; their work on bringing geographical balance to the article puts the topic in a whole different light. We also commend improvements to sourcing and prose
• A close second place goes to Phlsph7 for improving Education from an unstructured jumble into a well-sourced piece of instruction
• Third prize goes to Johnbod for improving Donatello, a near five-fold expansion with great sourcing and fantastic imagery
• A tie for fourth place goes to Thebiguglyalien for improving Crime, for a strong improvement in sourcing
• A tie for fifth place goes to Sammielh for International law, improved by converting contextless listicles into a proper sourced prose

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The article Fore River Railroad 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:Fore River Railroad and Talk:Fore River Railroad/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The article Fore River Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Fore River Railroad for comments about the article, and Talk:Fore River Railroad/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in 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 LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

•   Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
•   Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
•   Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 13 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 13, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Your response to my posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, though criticizing, is fine by me. I may post a reply there, in part to explain how I collected the usernames to ping (which is mainly from the no-doubt outdated, though supposedly current, membership lists of the two WikiProjects). You mention, though, that one person pinged is an indefinitely blocked user, and I may just remove that name if you'd let me know which it is, and if I could do so quietly as part of another edit. Or maybe I should not try, as perhaps that would call attention to the name, and I don't really want that to be a distraction. What do you advise? Anyhow, thank you for commenting. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, removing the ping won't remove the notification, my point is there was no reason to do a mass ping. A basic message would have sufficed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. But a basic message, where? My point is that neither the WikiProject US nor the WikiProject Louisiana talk page is working for reaching interested editors and provoking any discussion, about anything. I believe it is important to change the misdirection of traffic, and I hope that some of the pinged people--likely only reachable by pinging or by placing notices on their individual Talk pages--will be reached and will comment. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Which sources would you like for this edit you reverted? Or more to the point; sources for which statements? The number of seats on planes vs. trains? The fact that those airports closed/moved? Or something else? 213.95.33.60 (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edits ran afoul of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. You can't make assertions like you did in those edits with zero sources for anything. I also question the relevance of the material you added. That the article is presently insufficiently cited doesn't mean further edits don't need sourcing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

So the fact that trains have more seats than planes would need a citation of someone specifically remarking that? Or do I misunderstand something? Or would it be sufficient to source the number of seats of a relevant train and a comparable plane? 213.95.33.60 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, would the individual airports moving/closing need a citation or would there need to be a citation of someone specifically remarking that airport have moved/closed out of citiy centers and into more far-out locations? Or do you think no matter what any reliable source may say or may have said, there's no way to have something similar to those statements in the article? 213.95.33.60 (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're asserting the movement or closure of airports is a trend, you should be able to find a source that covers/discusses this trend. And when I looked, I was indeed able to find stories about airports being moved out of cities: [2] [3] [4] but I could not find evidence this is a trend. You would need to cite a source that shows airports moving out of cities is a trend. Otherwise, you're engaging in synthesis.

Simply stating "1 train holds more people than 1 plane" without context is misleading - one ship can hold more people than a train and an airplane combined. Trains are also run with many different capacities, and a train of a few cars has less capacity than a 747, so that's not a universally true statement. Sourcing "this train holds this many people, and this plane holds this many people" is one thing, but if you're using that to then make an argument about one mode being better than the other, that crosses the line into original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We don't do analysis of sources, we report the analysis conducted by secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings, i had a quick question regarding this blurb for this article. i am not sure i understand what the blurb means when it says that locals and the new haven "agreed to rebuild the line for freight only under New Haven control, using a gasoline locomotive". to me, this suggests that the parties agreed to use a gasoline locomotive to rebuild the line, though i am struggling to understand why the parties would explicitly agree to using a specific type of locomotive for the line's rebuilding. my reading of the article leads me to conclude that the gasoline locomotive was acquired to operate the line with lower maintenance costs. in addition, the article does not appear to provide details on how exactly the line was rebuilt. if my reading is correct, would it be appropriate to replace "rebuild the line for freight only under New Haven control, using a gasoline locomotive" with "rebuild the line for a gasoline locomotive under New Haven control carrying freight only"?

note that this suggestion would increase the length of the blurb by 2 characters. the blurb is already at 1028 characters, exceeding the 1025-character limit, though this is due to a recent addition by Ravenpuff. i am not sure if the addition was deliberate or done in error, but since Ravenpuff is familiar with a good deal of standards that i am not, i did not want to revert the addition unilaterally in case i was missing something. if Ravenpuff does not get back to us by day's end, would you be amenable to an additional rewording to reduce the character count? offhand, i would suggest replacing "for the next 33 years" with "until 1937". dying (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dying: My own opinion is that the final clause, "and little remains", reads a little awkwardly and can be easily improved by tacking on the words "of it". But I don't think the original blurb was grammatically incorrect by any means. I would also add here that my stance on character limits is that we can allow a little leeway where it would be beneficial; I don't think anyone will have it in mind to complain that this blurb is three whole characters too long! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ravenpuff, just to be clear, i agree with you that i don't think anyone will complain at wp:errors if the blurb is a few characters long, and i apologize if my comment suggested that you did anything wrong. i will post a follow-up message on your talk page. dying (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dying: Essentially, the New Haven Railroad agreed to spend its own money to rebuild the line and to buy (and lease to the Wood River Branch) a new gas-powered locomotive in the place of steam locomotives. The gas locomotive was much cheaper to operate, more reliable, and didn't require hours of preparation each morning (the train crew of a steam locomotive has to spend time starting the fire in the boiler before the locomotive can operate). This is alluded to in the body with It was suggested that the line acquire a gasoline-powered locomotive which could be operated cheaply and without track upgrades, but obtaining one would cost $10,000. and By 1929, the railroad was showing a profit, aided greatly by the efficiency of the A100, which only required a single operator and negated the hours of work required to start a steam locomotive each day. I'm not sure I agree with your exact wording, but I'm still waking up right now and will look at it more closely later today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

oh, yes, i understood that part of the article. apologies for not making that clear. what i was unsure about was whether or not the agreement reached between the locals and the new haven required the "New Haven track gangs [that] were dispatched to repair the line" to do so using a gasoline engine. i think that is what i understood upon my first reading of the blurb, which confused me. the article explains why it was more economical to use a gasoline engine after the repairs were conducted. it seems to mention nothing about why it would be more preferable to use a gasoline engine to conduct the repairs. in any case, if you think my rewording leaves something to be desired, i'm fine with leaving the blurb alone. dying (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thenk you today for the article, "about a little-known shortline railroad in Rhode Island with a very interesting history. 5.6 miles in length, it opened in 1874 and connected rural Hope Valley, Rhode Island, to the national rail network at Wood River Junction, Rhode Island. In addition to shipments for local residents, the company served a number of mills, a factory, a coal dealer, and a lumbering operation; later, a grain mill became the primary customer. Passengers and mail were also carried until 1927. Money was always short, and the railroad had some very interesting events as a result - one man became president in 1904 to make sure the railroad kept running so his mother wouldn't be isolated at her Hope Valley home. The railroad was almost abandoned after major flooding in 1927, but a deal was worked out where Southern New England's dominant railroad, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, intervened to keep the line going. In 1937, grain mill owner and former speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives Roy Rawlings bought the railroad for $301 (not a typo). The company finally came to its end in 1947 when the grain mill and several other buildings were consumed by a series of fires. A few remnants of the line can still be found today."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Longhornsg (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have the time, would you be able to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/archive1? I am in dire need of reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If I have time I will, but I cannot promise I will. I've been quite short on time lately, I'm afraid. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

•   Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
•   Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
•   Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

If you prefer to just yank accurate info off of the site because a pedantic process for citations wasn't followed in favor of having out of date and inaccurate information on the page, have a ball. I hope you enjoy yourself scolding people instead of taking the equivalent amount of time to verify a simple minor edit. An amount of time that might be a few short seconds more than your tsk, tsk note took to write.

Don't worry, I won't bother to correct any more disinformation, misinformation and malinformation that I regularly see slathered all over wikipedia's rail related pages. J. Henry Priebe Jr. 07:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cp256 (talk • contribs)

If following Wikipedia's rules about original research is too difficult for you, may I suggest Fandom? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Trainsandotherthings,

I'm coming here to please ask you to dial down the hostility in AFD discussions. There is no reason to be so condescending towards editors who hold different opinions than your own. We are all seeking to do what's best for the project and disagreements happen all of the time. You have not been editing here that long to be so jaded. Please assume good faith and do not be so dismissive of other editor's arguments. You can disagree all you want but don't be disagreeable. Thank you for helping lower the tension in deletion discussions and seek to work collaboratively with your fellow editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

When someone responds to you with "you seem to be confused" and talks down to you like you joined the project yesterday, it's clear who decided to start being condescending. I find myself more and more distraught when I see just how many projects have shoved massive amounts of non-notable stuff into mainspace solely because they like it, created entire walled gardens, and then straight up lie about what our policies do and don't say. I had to fight tooth and nail just to get a few train editors to stop ignoring policy in favor of their own local consensus.

Go look at that source assessment table and then compare it to the comments of those advocating a keep. Yes, I am frustrated and jaded. I am someone who really needs to have consistent and clear rules, and seeing people not just bend but outright break them is upsetting. You may be right to say that my tone was unacceptable, but it is objectively true that the sourcing quality is utterly abysmal and was being completely misrepresented.

I'm considering quitting any and all AfD participation entirely because utterly appalling discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobie Cat and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Yacht Club show that AfD is about counting votes and it does not matter one bit what policy says. I'll just go back into my corner and write about trains and let those who put their personal feelings above policies and guidelines do whatever they want. To that effect, I have just removed all deletion sorting pages I previously followed from my watchlist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)