User talk:Cards84664/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Mass rollback of an IPs edits

Over at WP:EF/FP/R, 69.113.135.130 is requesting help making an innocuous-looking edit to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road). But I see you've rolled back over a dozen of this user's edits without giving an explanation, or warning. What was your reason for the reverts, and the lack of a warning? They've been quite busy, in any case. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That IP, and at least a dozen before it, have been making no-edit-summary changes to railroad-related articles for months now. Some are good, some are mediocre, and many are outright wrong. (Several of the previous IPs have received blocks.) Given their refusal to respond to talk page messages, and the number of bad edits they repeatedly make, they should be reverted on sight. I've been thinking about filing an LTA report. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Perhaps one of you should report this to AIV/ANI, then? I'm not familiar enough with the case, obviously, to make the report, but it looks like this user is still at it as we speak. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

New Haven Line

Trying to show distinct complex service patterns with s-rail, like the New Haven Line, ends up being confusing more than helpful. As a general rule, any given named service - Northeast Regional, New Haven Line, etc - should be shown in s-rail as if it was an all-local service. Unless they separately name different classes of trains (as Caltrain does), it's not worth the maintenance headache - and reader confusion - of showing the service pattern in s-rail. Whatever you're trying to do right now is resulting in some baffling situations - like West Haven station claiming New Haven Union Station to be the terminus. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I have already reverted the complex services, everything else should be minimalized now. I did forget to switch the terminus to State Street, so that should be fixed now. Cards84664 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I really do appreciate all the effort you're putting into s-rail! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hudson Line edits

Please don't modify my edits, the "Hudson Line" is the line the stations are served by. Empire Corridor is associated with Amtrak and they do not serve the the MNR stations excluding Yonkers, Croton & Poughkeepsie. Though you are correct, Hudson Line sounds more appropriate as it is owned by Metro-North and more people refer to it as the Hudson. North of Poughkeepsie is Amtrak only so stations northward are better appropriate for use of "Empire Corridor". 67.87.196.115 (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed in full here; that's why it's been that way for years. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox NYCS titlepadding

Template:Infobox NYCS titlepadding has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of left template on Japanese stations

The left template causes syntax errors with the markup parser. Mackensen (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Why the revert at Template:Left?

I'm curious why you reverted my change to Template:Left without leaving a note on the template's talk page. There is a discussion there about the nuances involved. A simple revert of my change does not fix anything, and it introduces Linter errors into many pages. Please revert your edit and join the discussion. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cards84664. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Format

Hi. What happened here? --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The long established format for MBTA infobox headers is to match the physical signs on the platforms. Those signs are color coded and all caps. Cards84664 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. Can you point me to a discussion where this was agreed, please? And can you also say how this fits with MOS:ALLCAPS? Thanks in advance. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware of an exact discussion, the template in question was created in 2011. I joined in 2015. You could try asking the people that edited it before me. Here's the link. Cards84664 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I could, or you could. Meantime, I'll reinstate those edits. See also WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See Template talk:MBTA infobox header for history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. I definitely don't see a consensus there for all caps or multiple instances of the title. It looks daft, adds no information, and contravenes our project-wide style guidelines. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

We have this argument once a year. Please stop disrupting articles that you know nothing about. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we? I don't. That sounds very unproductive. I'll move this discussion elsewhere, and I note your hostile edit summary. Really there's no argument to be had though. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535: If the discussion happens once year, it would be helpful to link from the template's page to a definitive WikiProject MOS, guideline, RfC or other consensus outcome. I found some previous discussions, but they were not conclusive, and the most recent one I found was from 2012. I didn't find the annual discussions from 2013–2018, so please link to them. Thanks in advance! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

See this talk page discussion, started without any notification here, as far as I can see. Pinging Pi.1415926535. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

They already saw it. Cards84664 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Dashes

The name is question is a compound between "Thi-C" (which has a hyphen) and "Campus District". The correct connector is the unspaced en dash. See MOS:DASH for related examples. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Cards84664 is a self-described "roadgeek and railfan". A visit to his userpage is a look into the world of public transportation for many of the major cities of North America. With over 29000 edits (72% in mainspace) Cards84664 has diligently worked within Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains to improve WP's status as the Worlds major information site. List of state routes in Ohio, New York City Public Transportation, Tower City Center in Cleveland and the Ohio Turnpike are just some of the many articles that Card has worked on. He also has made hundreds of edits to improve the many transportation templates. For these efforts and more, Cards84664 deserves to be Editor of the Week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 20:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind nomination, Buster7! Cards84664 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Revert

How revert i was making a new topic along with correct random order of cards. 83.28.63.169 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh no. Numbers I pick are symbolic for me. Cards84664 (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Cards84664, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, A Red Cherry (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

A Red Cherry (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Manchester Avenue station for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manchester Avenue station 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/Manchester Avenue station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. — C16SH (speak up) 04:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverts on NICTD articles

Please join the discussion at Template talk:Adjacent stations#Only showing headers once and consider reverting yourself. S-rail-next is helpful, but not essential, and not a great reason to revert in my opinion. Mackensen (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Please fix rail articles

In {{Infobox station}}, |other_services= is described as follows: other_services: Allows inclusion of the s-rail/s-line boxes for former and/or future services. (Do not use {{s-start}} and {{s-end}} templates.).

At Springhurst railway station and a dozen other articles, you introduced incorrectly nested tables (visible on the error list here) by not following these instructions. Please fix. Here's the list, as far as I can tell:

• Springhurst railway station
• Beaufort railway station, Victoria
• Stratford railway station, Victoria
• Traralgon railway station
• Morwell railway station
• Moe railway station
• Clarkefield railway station
• Castlemaine railway station
• Echuca railway station
• Eaglehawk railway station
• Maryborough railway station, Victoria
• Heathcote Junction railway station
• Tallarook railway station
• Shepparton railway station

Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Jonesey95: Fixed, I think. Jc86035 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Jc86035: Thanks. Elegantly done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Peterjack

Feel free to contact me if you need more help with Peterjack. While I considered myself involved due to one of the disputes, I don’t consider myself involved when it’s dealing with things as blatant and objective as block evasion. You can keep using SPI if you want, but if it’s blatant, I can WP:DUCK block him. And I can protect pages if he’s targeting them repeatedly too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Herzog Transit Services

I noticed you redirected Herzog Transit Services to Trinity Railway Express. Trinity Railway Express operates in Dallas–Fort Worth, and is indeed partially owned by Herzog, but Herzog Transit Services also operates rail services in San Francisco, Kansas City, and Oklahoma City. Would you be willing speedy delete the redirect under G7? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cards84664 (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing of station code in the article of Shimbashi Station

Thank you for thanking me for the edit. Calvinkulit (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hudson

Good catch: a space crept in to the key for Hudson so the dab wasn't working. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Muni stop nomination

I'm very displeased to see that you've nominated all Muni surface stops for deletion, much less without any prior discussion about them specifically. I have spent a great deal of time on these articles, and the fact that many are longer than stubs by my efforts indicates your deletion rationale is very incorrect. It's honestly quite the slap in the face to have you make such a mass nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not my call to make. There was general consensus here to remove all such articles. If your argument is as valid as you say it is, you should have no problem preventing the redirects. I have also specifically skipped all stations with full platforms for the time being. Cards84664 (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It was your decision to make the AfD, and your decision to do so without talking to me about it! One deletion discussion being closed doesn't obligate you to nominate every remotely similar article. Even if the discussion is closed as keep - and given the constant presence of editors who automatically vote delete on any transportation-related articles, that's not even guaranteed - you're still wasting a lot of my time and effort that I could be spending actually working on these articles. At worst, you're destroying dozens of hours of my and others' work for no reason. You chosing presence of a high platform as criteria whether to nominate also indicates a lack of understanding of these articles - in some cases, stops with little infrastructure have the most (well-cited) history to discuss. I kindly request that you withdraw the nomination and allow me to spend my time actually improving these articles rather than arguing about them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones and Beach station

Hi there - I have closed this AFD as 'speedy keep'. Bundling nearly 100 articles together was never going to work. I would advice that you nominate one article for deletion, and if there is consensus for deletion at that, nominate the rest in batches of no more than, say, 4 or 5. It is much more manageable for everybody involved. GiantSnowman 14:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. –Davey2010^Talk 14:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman has had to manually remove the AFD notices from all articles and then manually add the template to those article talkpages - He's made over 200 edits and spent over an hour just on this alone!,
  

What was a 1 second automated job for you was a 1-2 hour manual job for someone else so please do not bundle 98 (or more) articles to one AFD,

You're more than welcome to bundle 5-10 articles at most,

If you do this again you run the risk of being blocked - I appreciate you may not of known this at the time but I still feel a warning here is sufficient given the disruption caused,

Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 14:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Cable car stops

Hello Cards84664, I have been working on Indian railway station articles. Some portion is excellent. Another batch is atrocious, protected by a free pass. I launched an RfC that got not much attention (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#RfC_India_railway_stations), followed by a test-balloon of a single-article AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hapa_Road_railway_station). There are 8,500 railways station in India. Of those 2,900 have articles. Of those, 2,000 are stubs. And as you might imagine, there are a couple hundred that are atrocious -- no references or relying solely on the state railway website. If schools are no longer presumed notable, then why should a ground-level train station or tram stop automatically be notable? The most popular argument is "We've always considered them notable. Now is no time to change." You might want to chime in. Rhadow (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones and Beach station

Thanks for at least trying here! Perhaps addressing those on one line at a time would be better. The Manchester Avenue is good precedent and it seems all the votes to keep were just bitching about this being too many articles at once despite their clear similarities. Reywas92^Talk 20:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

GCT

Why'd you change your mind on the services and move LIRR out of the collapsible table? It meant the infobox was shorter before, so I really prefer how it was... ɱ (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We'll be adding it back hopefully by 2022, so it makes no difference as to when. Better to get used to it now. Cards84664 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It's still three years from now, and it's entirely possible we'll come up with a better solution by then, or plans could easily change. Can we change it back for now? ɱ (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Multiple rows in s-rail

Using multiple rows for the same service in s-rail is confusing to the reader - the separation between "all stations on the line" and "only stations with articles" is not remotely clear. Only one row should be used, except for branches and similar situations where one row is not possible (and where the second row will still be intuitive). If the local stops are likely to remain redlinks for a long time, it's better not to include the row at all - the article on the line can have a listing of all stops. Alternately, create templates for a named train (preferably one with an article) and that will serve the purpose of navigation between major stops. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The top row was added so it would be easier to navigate from article to article. Additionally, we don't use the named services because they are too vast, many lines didn't have them, and that would require creating many many more templates, especially for the Northeast Corridor.

@Kew Gardens 613: @Mackensen: @Epicgenius:. Cards84664 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

We definitely don't want named services for pre-Amtrak private operation; there would be 20+ on some segments for each company. The present situation is awkward in that we have stations for which there's no related article about the line, and in some cases it's not even clear what that article should be titled. This makes the preferred solution of an line article with all the redlinked station articles difficult to implement. Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:120th

Template:120th has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Could I please ask a favor? "Fix" as generic edit summary isn't all that helpful, especially when you're actually adding new content like with Thorndale. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SEPTA bus style

Template:SEPTA bus style has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Station layouts

Haven you given any thought to a template or lua module for station layouts? My thought is that it's not too different from Adjacent stations: data rows for a particular line with direction and termini, with the extra information for levels and platforms. Passing through some of that information to the various data modules (s-line or adjacent stations) could improve consistency and eliminate some redundant data entry. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be very helpful, but I don't have any experience in writing up modules themselves. Cards84664 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Are we any closer to figuring out |system-nextn=yes for Adjacent stations? Cards84664 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DC Streetcar infobox header

Template:DC Streetcar infobox header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:DC Streetcar style

When you create templates, please add some {{Documentation}} to the template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Station layout contrast issues

I'm noticing the occasional problem with color contrast on link text in the station layouts. I think I've got a reasonable solution which I've demonstrated at 8th Street station (Hudson–Bergen Light Rail). Instead of manually linking the service and setting the color on the span, use {{rail color box}} with |inline=. Visually I think the effect is similar, it's less markup to wade around in, and we sidestep the color contrast problem. Interested in your thoughts. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I recall some cities doing that before, dunno how widespread they were but I haven't seen any lately. I'll have to do some digging to be sure, but I like how that looks. Cards84664 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

How to change the "Toward <insert station name here>" on the "s-line"?

It seems like the S-Train (Weekdays) on the "s-line" script doesn't show accurate information. It would show "Toward Seibu Chichibu" even tho it ends at Tokorozawa Station and it would show "Towards Motomachi-Chukagai" even tho it ends at Toyosu. Calvinkulit (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calvinkulit:  Done Cards84664 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is still inaccurate information in Yurakucho Station. Calvinkulit (talk) 9:23 AM, 17 March 2019 (GMT +8) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calvinkulit:  Done Cards84664 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Read the official text.

You said that my post was a hoax. Read the official text. https://www.jreast.co.jp/press/2018/yokohama/181122_y02.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossHatch (talk • contribs) 16:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@CrossHatch: Jorudan Co.'s timetable data does not show any new icons. Cards84664 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@CrossHatch: The problem I have with this is that there are no English sources, no new maps, no maps of the area that far west, and the one press release is impossible to find for English users. Cards84664 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything else that you can provide as a source? Cards84664 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I need help over here.

When I removed the Hayate service from the adjacent stations of the Kurikoma-Kogen Station, I messed the code up. Calvinkulit (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cards84664 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Three Rivers

Until 1996, the Three Rivers terminated at Pittsburgh. Yes, some cars were exchanged with the Capitol Limited, but that's not useful to show in the s-rail templates. (Edit: it does appears that the through cars were on the ex-NYC with the Capitol Limited; the ex-B&O wasn't used until the 1996 extension to Chicago. But again, I really don't think it's useful to show the through cars - it gives the false impression that the Three Rivers ran to Chicago, when it did not.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, I saw trains 46 and 47, and missed 446 and 447. Cards84664 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

PA Route References

You may remember me as the guy who finished up List of state routes in Pennsylvania. Much of that list, and a whole bunch of individual route articles, used an old PennDOT document as a reference for route lengths. See the current footnote #10 at the list article. It looks like that PennDOT source has disappeared and a Wikipedia bot has modified the reference code to point to an irrelevant (for us) new site on construction diagrams. I can find no official current document in the sites for PennDOT or the PA government that offers information on particular route lengths, which in turn could be used to fix these now broken references. Can you think of any document that could be used? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Facts???

Hello Mr.Cards84664, I noticed you claimed I was a possible sock. Please explain that claimed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson Tennessee Rules (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You follow the same editing habits as before, with creating hoax articles for US highways.

Also,

"I hope Kinu and all of the administrator's on Wikipedia are convinced." - here

"I'm 2006 December, don't tell Kinu" - here

Okay, thank you, I just wanted to join Wikipedia again for a brief moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson Tennessee Rules (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Solon EL

Yeah, this is back when the NW had control of the EL and before the building that has absorbed Solon station was built. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 22:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to start some of the Erie station articles in Ohio, just let me know. I will be able to assist you. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 22:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The only one I could probably help with is Nypano Depot. I wrote up the services template for it here. Currently I'm also working on Cleveland Union Depot here. Cards84664 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC).

Do me a favor, switch that to whatever the proper Erie name would be. NYPANO was really just a small name for a time. Also, Erie has an adjacent stations module created by Mackensen. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 23:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'll go with Erie Depot for now. Cards84664 (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Which station is this referring to? The old one that died as a bar in the late 1990s? Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 00:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, from what I can see here. Cards84664 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

After doing some personal digging Cleveland Riverbed station would be sufficient. These are my sources. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 04:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchazenia: Table 3 I found "Erie R.R. station" so far. Cards84664 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Metro-North logos in line infoboxes

So, all of the sudden you find the use of the Metro-North logo in the infoboxes of articles on Metro-North lines to be redundant and excessive? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yup. You did that a year and a half before I joined Wikipedia, and I didn't really question it until now because my main focus is on Ohio. I logically noted that neither the NJT, LIRR, NYCS, or SEPTA does this with their line articles, let alone anywhere. For sake of consistency with other rail systems nationwide, I found the icons excessive. As they were grandfathered in, I made sure to remove them boldly. Cards84664 (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico's flag

Hey! I see you reverted my edit on List of metro systems. However, the column lists the 'Sovereign state in which the metro system is located', and Puerto Rico is not a sovereign state. I'm not against using sub-national flags, as long as their usage is consistent. If you want the flag of Puerto Rico displayed, please change the colomn to 'Country in which the metro system is located'. Then, change the other flags: Barcelona Metro is in Catalonia, Bilbao in the Basque Country, Glasgow in Scotland, just to name a few.Trinaliv (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, this is per Political status of Puerto Rico. Cards84664 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

CUT

Hi - thanks for creating an adjacent stations navbox for the River Road station. I however don't think it belongs in the article for a wholly different station. Perhaps move to Transportation in Cincinnati, History of Cincinnati, List of Ohio train stations, or best yet, Draft:River Road station. It's also in quite a prominent place, especially where the terminal's own s-rail box is partly collapsed and smaller. ɱ (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I've created Cincinnati River Road station. Given the complexity of services in the area between 1972 and 1991 - it took me four notes just to handle the service templates - it's definitely better to have the separate article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks

Why are you adding nonsense redlinks to Amtrak articles? Ashland Transportation Center is the former C&O freight house, and the former station building is discussed in the article. There's never going to be - and should not ever be - a separate article for the pre-1975 station. I have no idea what you're trying to do with Huntington - the current station is at the C&O station location. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, it seems like you're trying to pack every single service detail into the service templates. (Nothing that a station closed a year after a train stopped serving it? Thats absurd.) That's not what they're for - they're to present a simple summary of what services stop, or formerly stopped at, a station. As a rule of thumb:

• Current services should show only the adjacent stations currently in use. Never former stations - thats not relevant to the station that you're putting the templates on. The service is the important information; the adjacent stations are only there for navigation. Future stations are okay only when they're a definite commitment (generally when funding is assigned.)
• For stations where most former services stopped at the same time (like a station that was one-for-one replaced), only the final adjacent stations for those former lines should be shown.
• For stations where services came and went, generally only the adjacent stations at the time of discontinuance should be shown. In truly exceptional cases like River Road where there were many routing changes, notes should be used rather than multiple rows. Almost never should you need more than one row for a single service.

As you're adding former services to stations, please try to keep these in mind. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I assumed adding context to current services was the norm per this edit. Cards84664 (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No, not at all. If I'd had that article watchlisted, I would have reverted. It adds so much length to the infobox for zero benefit to the reader. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Dunkirk

Wait, that was actually a thing? Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Appears on these timetables:

April 14, 1996

November 10, 1996

May 11, 1997

I was able to find it since I painstakingly converted everything on timetables.org to pdf form. Cards84664 (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't even want to think about the effort and patience that required. Well done. Regarding Dunkirk, I'm pretty sure Conrail (and then CSX) stonewalled the town over the station lease. Our article on the Lake Shore says it was never added. If so, might be worth showing anyway as a planned stop. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Notably there was no ADA compliance. Cards84664 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

All of those have note #67: "Service to commence on date to be announced". It doesn't appear that the stop was actually opened. Definitely worth keeping the note in the article (here's another potential source - but probably not in the RDT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oof. Cards84664 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Speaking of Amtrak stations on the Lake Shore, how much do we know about Penn Central's other stations along the line? (i.e. La Porte, Port Clinton, Elyria, Batavia (briefly under Amtrak), Amsterdam) Cards84664 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Beyond glimpsing Elyria through the window on a dreadfully late Lake Shore Limited, not much :/. I think it's a fruitful area, but I'm distracted by the Lehigh Valley's Auburn Division. I did come across a few things about Batavia when I was writing up Batavia station (Lehigh Valley Railroad), but probably not enough for an article. Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Lolwut? No warning, no response to the question on your talk, no explanation beyond "disruptive editing", just a block? What happened to asking people to stop whatever it is they're doing, before blocking? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: I was in the process of reverting the edits of a blocked user when I was blocked. RHaworth also removed stuff from my User page. Cards84664 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Try viewing your old userpage in the monobook skin. I see a giant black box covering all the sidebar links. That, to be honest, is kind of annoying (how am I supposed to click on your contributions?), though perhaps someone should have asked you to remove it first. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It's kinda annoying. (using Chrome Dev 77). I request you to remove those css lines. Masum Reza^📞 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sellersville station

I declined your speedy deletion request because I can't see how Draft:Sellersville station is a test page. If you have some issue with User:NorfolkSouthern523, going around tagging all their pages for deletion is not the way to resolve it.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrictramp: @RHaworth: NorfolkSouthern523 is blocked for disruptive editing. What's wrong with reverting their edits? Cards84664 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because someone is blocked for disruptive editing doesn't give you a license to ask for non-disruptive work to be deleted. I notice that you are blocked for the same reason -- do you think your previous contributions should all be reverted? ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I had no previous warnings. Cards84664 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You are more than experienced to understand these things. You should have taken content disputes to the talk page instead of reverting. Masum Reza^📞 21:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100, Fabrictramp, and RHaworth: Lots of experienced users misunderstand WP:BANREVERT. It takes just as long to say "Hey, stop this, read the policy", as it does to block. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Not vandalism

I disagree with the {{db-banned}} criterion. I take the view that if a page is valid, it does not matter who created it. But getting speedy deletion rules changed is a long winded matter. Category:railway stations in Erie County, Pennsylvania, for example, could not by any possible measure be called vandalism. If you really think that perfectly valid pages created by NorfolkSouthern523 (talk · contribs) should be deleted, at least use the correct speedy tag. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"NOTTRAVELGUIDE"

Please point me to the consensus discussion in which you were given permission to remove travel times (a single travel time from the station to Grand Central, not a timetable) from articles about Metro North Hudson line stations. If you cannot provide a such a consensus discussion, then I will be removing all' of your such edits as being without consensus. You can restore them once you have a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: @Mackensen: How are sections like these compliant with WP:NOTTRAVEL? They are trivial details, they change with each new timetable issued, and are mostly unsourced. Cards84664 (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a timetable, but I don't know that WikiProject Trains (or anyone else) has determined the limits of that principle with respect to this specific issue. We give mileage, after all, which serves two purposes: (1) it satisfies the railfans and (2) gives the reader a vague sense of the location of the station relative to its inbound terminus. Arguably travel times can help satisfy the second point, and are perhaps more useful than mileage for the traveler, but that's not necessarily what Wikipedia is for. Here are past discussions which touched on this question:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2010,_1#Should station articles (the Services section) include trains-per-hour figures? (2010, no consensus on trains per hour in articles)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2013#Timetables - existence and convention (2013, consensus that service and line articles should not include full timetables)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2011,_2#Representation of service details in station articles (2011, consensus that station articles shouldn't repeat full list of stops from line articles)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2011,_2#Exapansion of LA County Metro Rail Stubs (2011, probable consensus that station articles shouldn't have departure times)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2014#Mass creation of possibly problematic articles (2014, affirmed that station articles shouldn't contain timetables)

I don't claim the above is exhaustive, but I don't recall this specific issue being raised. Mileage is common, but then mileage doesn't change often. Travel times are a function of timetabling and therefore can potentially run into problems of reliability, verifiability, and triviality. I think it would be worth raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Cards84664: WP:NOTTRAVEL says, in its entirety:

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.

What sentence in that specifically applies to information such as "and travel time to Grand Central is about 51 minutes on local trains and 36 to 42 minutes on express/semi-express trains", which you removed from Irvington station (Metro-North)? Again, where is the consensus discussion, please, for your bot-like edits to multiple articles? If you cannot point to a consensus discussion, your edits will be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Mackensen: I grew up in Irvington, and was always fascinated by the fact that travel times to GCT had not changed in a long, long time, going back to New York Central steam trains. That amazed me, considering the radical changes in technology that had taken place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Indeed. I'm somewhat surprised that they haven't gotten worse. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I will be happy to revert the edits myself, if necessary per pending discussion. Cards84664 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

RE: Line templates

Sorry for reverting your edit. I am starting to use Twinkle and I could have rollbacked on accident. Happy editing :) --Mazewaxie 15:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)