Talk:Brookland–CUA station

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Which photo is better?

Question for the group: Which photo do you consider better for the infobox?

I personally prefer the one showing the station interior front and center. Another editor prefers the aerial shot that puts the station in the bottom half of the photo. What do you think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

SchuminWeb, the apparent owner of anything Metro-related on Wikipedia, is upset that his photo is being replaced. He feels that most Metro articles must use his photos since he apparently traveled to each and every station to take a picture. (see here for details) The station is called Brookland-CUA and my photo is showing CUA & a clear shot of the Metro station/train. Schumin, you have about 80+ Metro photos still being used on other articles. Get over the fact that someone wants to replace this one. APK is like a firecracker. He makes it hot. 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil and comment on the content, not the people involved. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh god. Nowhere have I been uncivil, unless showing your ownership issues is going to be twisted into something it's not. Claiming someone has been uncivil is usually how sysops get their way. Thanks! APK is like a firecracker. He makes it hot. 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You are, actually, being uncivil. Please calm down. Throwing a fit whenever someone questions if your photograph is the right one for an article is a fast way to get people to dislike you.

As for the photo I prefer, let me see. I used to ride to Brookland-CUA for work, so the first picture rings true. However, these are subway stations we're talking about. Most subway stations, by their nature, are underground, therefore, unless there's an elaborate above-ground entry, the best picture we can get is within the station. Furthermore, with few exceptions, most metro stations look alike from the inside. However, the above-ground ones afford us more opportunity for photographs. Not only do they give us possible overviews, like the one we have here, but they also tend to have a more individual appearance, not only in design but also in surroundings.

Since a metro station tends to look like, well, a metro station, there's not too much additional information we can convey to a reader with an interior view. However, that does illustrate the station itself well. And it does show the slight curve (though a photograph of the mirrors would be a great addition; is it possible to get a shot like this, but including a mirror mentioned in the article?) On the other hand, the overview photograph gives us the context for the station, while still showing it. And, in a rarity for photos of Metro stations, it shows it from the side, rather than down the track. Both pictures have merit; one shows the interior, one shows the context. I think I prefer, slightly, the overview photo for the infobox, with the interior shot elsewhere in the article. That said, APK, you need to calm down. I'd like to see you claim this is me trying to 'get my way' since I agree with having your photo on the top. --Golbez (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"You are, actually, being uncivil. (skip ahead) I'd like to see you claim this is me trying..." Pot, meet kettle. Anyway, no one is "throwing a fit" and I don't need to "calm down." I'm not upset or throwing a temper tantrum on the floor like a toddler, which is what you apparently think. It takes more than a picture of a train on a website to make me upset. The issue is dealing with this particular editor on Metro articles is rather difficult (now and in the past), and a very polite and civil discussion was attempted already on his talk page. All I want is for good images of the Metro to be displayed on articles, without them being immediately removed since they were taken by someone else. APK is like a firecracker. He makes it hot. 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All I want for you is to treat others with respect and good faith, even if they disagree with your photography. So calm down. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, telling someone who isn't upset to "calm down" over and over does the opposite. APK is like a firecracker. He makes it hot. 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it great? --Golbez (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It sure is! Glad you came to weigh in. Happy Hump Day! APK is like a firecracker. He makes it hot. 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shady Grove (WMATA station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brookland–CUA station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://planning.dc.gov/planning/frames.asp?doc=/planning/lib/planning/02_brookland_mp_exec_intro.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090330000022/http://transit.schuminweb.com:80/transit/wmata/red-line.php?station=B05 to http://transit.schuminweb.com/transit/wmata/red-line.php?station=B05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brookland–CUA station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150911133635/http://publicsafety.cua.edu/res/docs/PM-Bus-Schedule-pdf.pdf to http://publicsafety.cua.edu/res/docs/PM-Bus-Schedule-pdf.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://transit.schuminweb.com/transit/wmata/red-line.php?station=B05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)