Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Franklin Street Terminal

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Franklin Street Terminal

(
)
Tracks leading from the Franklin Terminal
Tracks leading from the Franklin Terminal
  • ... that the Franklin Street Terminal (tracks pictured) was located inside an office building? Source: Moffat p. 127: "Rather than demolish the buildings, it was decided to gut the second and third floors and extended [sic] the elevated structure into the resulting void."
    • Reviewed: Ye Dehui
    • Comment: Technically, this was a pre-existing redirect to an unrelated topic before I created it earlier today, but I think this is its first encyclopedic content on the topic so it should count as "creation". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Created by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 03:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Passed. There is one offline source that I AGF and that is not available to me locally. Article is new enough, long enough, well-written, well and reliably sourced, neutral, image is good and free, no plagiarism or copyright concerns, hook is very interesting, QPQ done. I hope it can go on the main page with the image for noticeability. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Review in progress. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Picture is barely clear but technically usable; it is of the tracks, not the station, so I personally wouldn't use it. Still in progress. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I would recommend the following unrequired things:
    • combine paragraphs 3 and 4 of lead
    • second paragraph in History change "to go as east as" to "to go as far east as"
    • combine the two paragraphs in section Closure
    • Station details: last paragraph seems out of scope (not necessary to address for DYK)
  • Will be neutral when the following is completed: remove the word "indeed" from the last paragraph of Section details to avoid appearing over-emphatic: "and indeed had built" can be "and had built"
  • Quotes should be brief (see MOS:QUOTE). I see no reason that facts about the station from the source couldn't be implemented in one or two paragraphs in this section.
  • Is [1] a reliable source or is it more of a WP:SELFPUB? It would be better to find that website's original source from Railway Age. Anything in this article that came from the self-published source should have a reliable source in replacement.
  • @John M Wolfson: I'd like to be able to approve this, but there are issues. I'm going to mark this as having minor problems in case you want to address them for DYK. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Eewilson: To sourcing points, Chicago-L.org has generally been approved for use in multiple DYKs and even a GA. Please see those to see why it is an adequate source for DYK (of course, the issues you present are very relevant for FAC, but that's a long while away). While I don't think "indeed" sponsors any specific viewpoint such that neutrality is violated, I have removed it.
As for the quote, I can see its length being an issue, but the source is public domain AFAIK, so nothing quite urgent is required there. I also think that the quote is quite descriptive of the station at the time and complements the "detailed descriptions" in the prose. Nevertheless, I have abridged it further and moved some of its contents to the prose.
As for the picture, no known pictures survive of the station's interior, so this seems the best we have. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Thank you for the ping.

  • Found another non-neutral word: "short-sighted" in the lead sounds judgmental; please change it to a neutral term such as "problematic" or something similar.
  • You said: "I also think that the quote is quite descriptive of the station at the time...." I think using the facts in prose can still make for a good description. I saw that you moved one part out. The quote is still not brief. One quote or several short quotes would be okay, but what is there now doesn't add anything that prose couldn't do.
  • I changed my mind about the clarity of the image. See also comments below regarding copyright and use in the article.
  • You wrote: "Chicago-L.org has generally been approved for use in...." Are there DYKs where it has not been approved? Furthermore, "reliable sourcing" isn't limited to DYKs, GAs, or FAs. It is relevant to all Wikipedia articles.
  • Regarding these three original sources cited by Chicago-L, I see you used Moffat. Could I see the source pages for this? You should be able to email me from my user page.
    • Moffat, Bruce G. (1995). The "L": The Development of Chicago's Rapid Transit System, 1888–1932. Chicago: Central Electric Railfans' Association.
  • Could you also provide this source?
    • "The Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad of Chicago". The Street Railway Review. 5: 263–274. January 15, 1895.
  • On Chicago-L's page for this station, it cites "'Signaling and Interlocking in Chicago--No. VII: A Description of the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Plant at Franklin Street Station.' The Railway Age, September 18, 1890, p. 223." If Chicago-L can find a copy of that publication and use it as their source, perhaps you can as well; then, you can use it as your reliable source. You can contact them, check WorldCat to see if there is a copy in a library local to you, post a resource request on the Resource Exchange WikiProject, or pursue other avenues to obtain it. I see what you have said about Graham Garfield and his knowledge, and I see that he is the creator and owner of the Chicago-L website. There are exceptions that make self-published sources acceptable for certain facts in Wikipedia; they can be "independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved" (quoting the essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid). However, if non-self pubs exist, then use them. For anything that is on the Chicago-L page that is obtained from a source that you can access, then the best choice would be to go to that rather than use Chicago-L, and send me a copy of that source.
  • You said the quote source is public domain; possibly true with respect to a copy of The Railway Age published in 1890. Both the image and that quote, however, have come from the Chicago-L.org website whose copyright notice reads, in part, as follows: "No part of this work may be copied or republished in electronic or printed form without prior approval of the respective copyright holder." So the Wikipedia article's actual source is not in the public domain, although that's not an issue in and of itself. It is possible that the source that Chicago-L used is PD, but we don't know.
  • On the image description page on Commons, you said you obtained it from Chicago-L. The only information they give as the source is "Photo from The Railway Age". That is not enough to ensure that it is in the public domain. Also, the date the photo was taken or published is on the Commons page but nowhere on the Chicago-L page. If you meant to use the date of the article where the big quote is from, the year they give is 1890, not 1895, but there is no indication the image came from that same issue. If you are able to find the original source and prove that it is in the public domain, then change the source on Commons, and send me a copy of that source. Otherwise, I don't approve the use of the photo in the article for DYK (and it's not clear enough at small size for the DYK hook).

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Either cite these facts from the infobox in the infobox or add them to the prose in addition to the infobox:
    • Line(s)    Metropolitan main line
    • Tracks     4 tracks
    • Structure type   Elevated

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  • @Eewilson: For Chicago-L.org, there has yet to be a DYK where it has been rejected, though of course I can use better sources when I find them. More to the point, I'll look for the Railway Age issue in question when I can. (Also, the Metropolitan didn't exist even as an idea in 1890, so I presume it was a typo for 1895). Sending you offline sources is an unreasonable request IMO – that's what the AGF tick is for – but the Street Railway review is in the DYK for Marshfield linked earlier, and Borzo is in Google Books. I can make the short-sighted change straightaway. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson:

  • Chicago-L is citing Moffet for information you have in the article, including the hook information. You have cited Chicago-L, yet you also list Moffet as a source. If you have Moffet as a source, use it for anything Chicago-L gets from it, because it would be better than Chicago-L.
  • I'm not asking for Borzo. I see it's in Google Books.
  • What do you mean by "the Street Railway review is in the DYK for Marshfield..."?

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  • @Eewilson: I have replaced much of Garfield with Moffat, including most importantly the hook. In addition, I moved some things from the quote to the prose; I could probably in due course move more but given the odd specificity of the numbers (cars per hour, levermen, etc.) I think it's better as a source of "contemporary flavor" in the quote and not in the otherwise-encyclopedic prose, and in any event IDK if it's strictly required by the criteria (as said before, I think we're safe in assuming it's public domain even if in a suboptimal place, and I say this as an administrator decently versed in the NFCC; in any even the original source has been found); ditto for the facts in the infobox (though I will get those in soon-ish, I don't think they're DYK-violating so long as citations exist at the end of each paragraph, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong). The picture is not required for the hook, and if it blocks its approval it can be approved without it. Again, thanks for your feedback and review! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    • @John M Wolfson: I'll dig into this today and see if there's anything else. I think it's good that you removed nearly all references to the website (since it was possible) and are instead using Moffat. I do believe Garfield is a knowledgable person, as you say, and that likely what is on his website is accurate. But, we need not use that kind of source if a better one is available. The quote length has become more manageable. I may have additional specific suggestions there. You probably ought to change the reference quote and link on this DYK page to Moffat instead of Chicago-L.org. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: I have been super busy in the past few days and accidentally let this slide. It will get my next input this week, I promise. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: continuing... If I didn't notice something that's clearly there, let me know, and I'll facepalm.

  • I made some minor edits; see edit comments.
  • If you are using American English, there may be places you need commas, but I'm not exactly sure how Wikipedia handles dealing with comma usage variations; I'll look that up. I think American English is appropriate because it's a U.S. city, but I'm not sure it matters.
  • Spell out units first time they are used: abbr=off (and sp=us if using American English).
  • Lead
    • Is "the Metropolitan" being used as a shortcut for "Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad", or is it the company/franchise? Or both? Is a "railroad" the company and the thing the trains go on? Maybe so. I thought those were "railroad tracks" though. It gets confusing; sometimes it seems like it's the company and other times the line/tracks. There needs to be something to transition the reader into understanding what's what, like we do with putting an acronym in parentheses or a nickname in double-quotes. Unlss you want to spell out "Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad" (jk). That article shortcuts it to "Met" or "Polly 'L'", talks about it as the actualy railway line, and in its infobox, uses "Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Company" for the company.
    • "The Metropolitan had intended"..."at Fifth Avenue"... here's the first instance of use of Metropolitan as I talked about above. Also, "had intended" sounds weird. Maybe "had authorized" or "had planned"; "authorized" is what is the second paragraph of History opens with. And the whole sentence only makes sense if "The Metropolitan" is the company/franchise, not the rail line.
    • I don't know the answer to this, but find out if "right of way" should be hyphenated, please.
    • The Loop could use a wee clarifier in the Lead, not just a Wikilink, even if it's just "an upcoming planned downtown railway portion" or something that works.
    • "This created issues" What created issues? Closing of Franklin Station? Maybe put that last lead paragraph with the one before it
    • wording "causing the railroad to need a new terminal" might be better than "leading to the railroad needing a new terminal" or "leading to the need of a new terminal" (or something similar and better than those options)
    • The following sentence does not make sense; desired all along? "This terminal, located at the Fifth Avenue desired all along, opened in 1904."
    • The following from the lead are either not covered or not clearly covered (e.g., not explicitly covered) in the body. Either point them out to me so I can go "duh" with a face-palm or include them in the body with sources. I think the language in the lead is pretty clear. It's a good lead, but the prose needs to support it. Note on my comment about "explicitly covered": the reader probably won't have an understanding about the railway industry and may not be able to transition to the more complicated language in the body from the more simplified language in the lead. Therefore, it's a good idea to use lead language in the body in addition to the "train-speak" to help the reader make that transition.
      • Still needed: source that the terminal was a rapid transit station [this is in the lead and the infobox but not the body]
        • There's nothing I could see that explicitly comes out and says this, but the Chicago "L" was, and is, a rapid transit system (indeed, the title of Moffat's book is subtitled "The Development of Chicago's Rapid Transit System"), so it would be a matter of course that the station is one of rapid transit. To your below point about the "L" not being expressly mentioned, I put a mention of it in the first sentence of the section. Since you might wonder why I have written "what would become the Chicago "L"", the evolution there is the unification of the multiple companies into a single system in a gradual process until 1924, not the lines themselves changing from non-"L" form to "L" form. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
      • that it was on the Chicago "L" [the Chicago "L" is not mentioned until Closure and not in that context]; I mean could it be on the Chicago "L" if that wasn't even a thing yet?
      • that it was the eastern terminus [what is a "terminus" and is there a way to say that without using jargon (e.g., the eastern terminal? the east end? the final stop? Lake Michigan? the place the trains switch direction then go the opposite way? (obv. don't use my words on that last one)] Can you also wikilink it or is there an appropriate term in wikt you can link to?
      • Nothing in the body talks about the "right of way" being the expensive part, or even brings up the that it was costly.
  • Infobox
    • Change wording of the efn from "This would be 314 S. Franklin Street" to "This is 314 S. Franklin Street".
      • Not done. If changing it to "is" would make it inaccurate grammatically, please let me know; as it reads now, it seems incorrect to me.
        • I have opted to use the subjunctive in this case, since the terminal no longer exists (and hasn't existed since the change occurred) and it would thus make no sense that it is at that address. If you feel that the address is itself an "eternal fact", – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Excellent. Thank you for that explanation. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    • In the body, make it clear that the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad franchise owned it; if this is supposed to be part of what is covered in the paragraph before Closure, it's unclear.
      • Not done so it is still unsourced.
        • I hope my improvements here addressed your concerns, as far as I can understand them. I noticed also that the Metropolitan was under receivership starting January 1897. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Again my wordiness bites me; you did understand them and this is good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Need source citation and something in body (besides the "Main article" that says it was on the Metropolitan main line what is Met and what is Met....
    • Tracks - I see where it says there were two tracks in the terminal, but something in the prose to clarify the "branching out to 4" part, with source
    • Is the preceding station clearly stated and sourced in the prose (Canal toward Marshfield)? I don't see anything.
  • History
    • Second paragraph uses "cost" or variation 3 times in two sentences. Maybe some synonyms?
    • Does Moffat say that two blocks from Franklin street to the Chicago River is "400 feet (120 m)"?
    • This is confusing: "The Metropolitan's lines were originally operated by the West Side Construction Company, which had been responsible for constructing them, and would be transferred to the Metropolitan..." Soooo, who is the West Side Construction Company and what do they have to do with/how are they related to the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad franchise? When you say "operated" does that mean the same as "owned"?
    • Closure
      • I think Closure would be better as a two-level section below Station details, as I am interpreting "History" as what led to the terminal being built.
      • Awkward sentence: "The Loop, an elevated railroad structure that would link the Metropolitan with the other companies that were operating lines that would become the Chicago "L", opened on October 11, 1897."
      • I see we have a source for this, "this was likely due to the cramped space between Franklin Street and the river that the station and its infrastructure occupied"; however, since it is currently written in Wikipedia's voice and it is a supposition, not a fact, and the source is self-published, I think it should either be removed or made into a short quote from Garfield using his name, a bit on who he is (his credentials, title, what-not), and that that he said it. Either is fine.
      • "This makes the terminal the second-shortest lived station" should that be "This made"?
      • I pulled up the last paragraph of Closure onto the end of the previous one and reworded it just a bit to make it straightforward.
  • Station details
    • I verified that the blockquote is accurately copied; had to make a few tweaks.
    • I question the value of the first paragraph of the blockquote in the article and think you can remove it.
    • The quote includes a lot of information and I'm not clear what actually happened inside the terminal, what was part of the terminal operation but outside, and what was not part of the terminal at all. You can clarify that here for me (if you want) or with text between passages of quote or some other way. Let's see what we can do.
    • Should “incline of the open draw” be “incline of the open drawbridge”?

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  • @Eewilson: This is far too detailed a review for DYK; that said, here are a few responses of mine.
    • Yes, the "Metropolitan" refers to the company, and the railroad, and its tracks. Which is which should be apparent from context and not really matter.
      • It was not apparent but adding "Company" and franchise made it so. Thank you. Done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I see nothing wrong with "had intended"; the pluperfect seems appropriate given that this was before the terminal was built.
      • "Had intended" is fine now that it is clear that "the Metropolitan" is the company. Done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think right of way should be hyphenated; it is not in the sources
      • It should be and I did it; see my comment below, made previously. Done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The West Side Construction Company was another company affiliated with the Metropolitan. Perhaps in an expanded article I could elaborate on that further, but for DYK this should be adequate.
      • To avoid a further argument, fine, but why not just say "West Side Construction Company, affiliated with the Metropolitan" or something similar in that paragraph aftersince it could use a blurb of explanation (not a whole expansion or new article) at this time)? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, Moffat does say it's 400 feet from the river; the conversion to metric was mine per Wikipedia style.
      • See my comment below re that, and thank you. Done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I changed "this was likely..." to "it has been speculated that..."
    • The first paragraph of the quote, as said earlier, is there for some "period flavor" in the prose.
    • No, it should still be "this makes" since it's an eternal fact.
    • The History section of transit stations includes closure in the history section. Station details are for architecture, facilities, building, etc., operations and hours, as well as external transfers and connections if any.
      • Oh, so the article's sections are standard for railway-type articles? That's fine. If so, thanks for the clarification. Done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The "branching out to four" part is from the quote.
    • I was trying to make this article short to see whether I could write a sub-10k Featured Article. I don't think I can here, so the Metropolitan's trackage is better sourced now.
  • Please limit yourself to anything that is actually fatal to DYK in terms of policy and criteria, and save editorial comments that you can't or won't act on yourself for future stages of review such as GA or FA.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson:

  • There was nothing wrong with my asking you if Moffat had said 400 feet, or any other questions about Moffat; if I am to accept the source without seeing it, can you please answer my questions about it without malice or snide remarks if I have them? I would appreciate that. I am thorough and detailed, and I know it gets annoying, but my only goal is to improve Wikipedia. DYK articles are not intended to represent the best; however, sourcing and clarity are of utmost importance and required for DYK no matter how small the article. Options are to remove parts that aren't clear or clarify them. You have plenty of prose that you could remove problematic parts should you choose if you didn't want to expand or clarify for DYK approval; that's your choice. However, I think after your most recent changes, that's not necessary.
  • Right-of-way is hyphenated in the context of transportation as you can see by the article Right-of-way (transportation); I Wikilinked to it and added four words in the body where it talks about costs to clarify that the expense of acquiring the property was acquiring the property for the right-of-way. This may seem redundant and trivial to you, but I can assure you as a reader, I don't find it so.
  • I will get back here this morning with updates on the points I have made.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson:

  • Many strikeouts; there are still a few things left → look in "Lead" and "Infobox" areas, above, in maroon bold, and a response to one of your bullets in blue bold. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • @Eewilson: While I appreciate your concerns and questions, for future reference DYK reviewers are generally expected to accept offline or paywalled sources without much question, which is why the {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} exists. In any event, I have addressed your maroon concerns. Let me know if you have anything else, and I'll let you know if/when this article goes through the GA or FA process. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
      • @John M Wolfson: I hear you, and I continue to work on accepting on good faith. When it comes to sourcing, that's a hard one (although, for the record, I think I do accept Moffat "without much question"). I am a researcher through and through. I only do DYK reviews for the QPQ. This article was the lucky one this time, but I hope it has made the article better, which is the point. The additions have clarified and sourced all outstanding issues; IMO, the article is beautiful now. Perhaps in the future, the blockquote can have a bit more integration into the prose, but I suppose if the Wikipedia world is okay with it, I should be, too. I will leave the picture as part of the hook. Also, the .jpg map you reference is awesome. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, thank you for your efforts. I also fancy myself a researcher for Wikipedia purpose. And thanks for your comments! :) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson and Eewilson: I'm a little confused – the article tells me that Existing buildings on the site were preserved with the railroad running through their second floors; the Franklin buildings were used by the Metropolitan as its terminal and offices. Sounds to me like that the terminal was in a building of some kind (which buildings aren't made super clear, were all the buildings on the block used by the company?), and some of the other building space was used as an office. Could the discrepancy be corrected? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 13:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the improvements, John M Wolfson, but it still seems to treat the terminal and the offices as separate places. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    • @John M Wolfson: My copy of Moffat came a few days ago. I can see if I can come up with some tweaks if you like. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
      • That would be great. I had to return my copy to the library a week ago. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron

Information was added or modified to clarify and to remove the discrepancy:
1. there were two multi-floor office buildings in the block between Market and Franklin;
2. the 2nd and 3rd floors of both buildings were gutted and used for the terminal;
3. the upper floors in the building facing Franklin were then used by the company for its offices; and,
4. the upper floors of the Market Street building were leased out to tenants.
The updated prose reads as follows:
"There were two multi-story office buildings in the block between Market and Franklin, one on each street, which were preserved. The second and third floors of the two buildings were gutted in order to provide space for the terminal. The Metropolitan then used the Franklin Street building's upper floors for its offices, and the floors above the terminal in the Market Street building were leased out by the Metropolitan to tenants."
I made the change because I have a copy of the source now in my possession, and John M Wolfson does not because it had to be returned to his library. Also added to the lead that it was the 2nd and 3rd floors that were gutted, not just the 2nd. Hope this helps. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Eewilson! That should do it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Franklin_Street_Terminal&oldid=1127840300"