User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from January 2020 (the end of Archive 11) to April 2020. Please don't modify it. If you wish to revive a discussion, please start a new section on my main talk page and link to the discussion here.

Camden

Are you refering to an underground platform that isn't this one? Cards84664 (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Camden had a single island platform in the mouth of the Howard Street Tunnel. See diagram and photo. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of El Garces Intermodal Transportation Facility

The article El Garces Intermodal Transportation Facility you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:El Garces Intermodal Transportation Facility for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Nice to have met you. Look forward to working with you another time. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Great to meet you as well! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts)

The article Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of JFK/UMass station

The article JFK/UMass station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:JFK/UMass station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Awards

Hi, could you help me? Why I can't add awards to bridge in Boston? Where you see the conflict? I don't see any interest adding true information with reference. Thank you.Mwkas (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mwkas: It is obvious that you are affiliated with Miguel Rosales and Partners, a company that has spent years attempting to use Wikipedia to promote the firm and its projects. Undisclosed paid editing and editing with a financial conflict of interest are strictly forbidden on Wikimedia projects. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am a big fun of all bridges. Awards are real. I don't see the problem. Who can develop this page about this bridge? Mwkas (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI

I think you have that COIN report spot on, so I filed this. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

MBTA station listings

Hi, could you help me understand why station column is colored purple? I can't figure out why this is necessary. Thanks — C16SH (speak up) 22:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@C16sh: Please be more careful with the formatting of these tables - you are getting numerous things wrong. The coloring is to distinguish current from former stations, which is necessary for the majority of MBTA lines. Many lines have some non-accessible stations, which is why the {{access icon}} is used. The Silver Line is considered to be part of the MBTA subway system by the MBTA itself; it should be listed with subway lines not bus. Note that I put a great deal of effort several months ago into making all the tables having matching formatting; please do not reverse that standardization with wacky things like combining the Old Colony Lines tables. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood. But there should be a key that explains what the purple shading is used for -- when you have a list of only current stations, it is quite unclear, and this would provide accessibility as per MOS:COLOR. Might I suggest using gray shading for former stations and no shading for current ones? This is fairly consistent with other station listings, including LIRR and MNR. Let me know what your thoughts are. — C16SH (speak up) 23:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's simply a style choice and has no real function. I'll do a double check of the various MBTA lines and remove them. Cards84664 23:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Current stations should draw the eye, not former stations. That gray shading is almost worst than no shading at all in that respect. I personally feel that the shading is intuitive enough on lists that include former stations to not need an awkward legend; on lists without, it should not be confusing. As far as accessibility goes, the closure of the station is always noted in the notes column (the closure year if not date of all former MBTA stations is known from reliable sources). The shading is just a nice supplementary indicator. @Cards84664: There's nothing you need to do. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

But why are they a shade of red/pink for all the Subway lines? Cards84664 23:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless there needs to be a key or a sentence explaining the meaning of the color. It may be intuitive but our manual of style says "ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." I'd consider a station being opened or closed to be important information. — C16SH (speak up) 00:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cards84664: Because wikilinks aren't. @C16sh: If you can find an elegant way to do it, I'm all for it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Check out Fairmount Line. Note that I took the colors out of the "current stations" table since a color is denoting open vs. closed is not necessary given the name of that table.— C16SH (speak up) 00:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The legend at the bottom of the second table looks great. However, I believe the coloring should be maintained even for the handful of lines without former stations, in order to have consistency between all MBTA rail articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That's kind of why I originally pushed for color to denote the closed/former stations instead of what it is now (for MBTA). Since there are some lines without closed/former stations, it would allow for the color to be used only when there is a distinction and not just to preserve consistency. — C16SH (speak up) 00:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@C16sh: An issue with your addition of the km conversions: Because many table rows were previously only one line of text, you have effectively added an enormous amount of whitespace to the tables. Please figure out a way to mitigate this if you are insistent on adding superfluous conversions to these tables. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I will happily restructure the tables to reduce the extra whitespace, but these conversions are not "superfluous," they are a standard across Wikipedia. Regards — C16SH (speak up) 17:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of the MOS; however, it is primarily concerned with prose (where conversions make sense), and I am not convinced that it mandates repetitive conversions of the same units in tables. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Your condensed units look good, btw. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@C16sh: Speaking of condensed units, looks like {{convert}} can hide the units. The might be worth doing to maintain the automatic conversion - thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Ha! If only I realized that before making the conversions manually. Not a bad idea, but I personally won't rush to make the change. — C16SH (speak up) 15:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts)

On 18 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Union Station in Walpole, Massachusetts, was the site of the last semaphore signals in New England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for JFK/UMass station

On 19 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article JFK/UMass station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority twice built new lines bypassing JFK/UMass station, only to add platforms later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/JFK/UMass station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, JFK/UMass station), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aquarium station (MBTA)

The article Aquarium station (MBTA) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aquarium station (MBTA) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Truflip99 -- Truflip99 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MBTA Boat

The article MBTA Boat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:MBTA Boat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Go Transit

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)#Go station naming regarding station naming conventions for Go Transit. Cards84664 00:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oakland Coliseum station

The article Oakland Coliseum station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oakland Coliseum station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Connecticut Route 11 undo

I'm curious. You undid an informative edit I added to this article. Route 5½ has been a 40-year-old joke in New London County where I grew up. Just where do you live that makes you an authority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgbpop (talk • contribs) 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Lgbpop: Per Wikipedia policy, reliable sources are needed. As a self-published source, Kurimi is not considered reliable for most claims. A reliable source like The Day or the Hartford Courant, where stories are reviewed by editors prior to publication, is needed for this claim. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Palo Alto station

The article Palo Alto station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Palo Alto station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Truflip99 -- Truflip99 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 360 Newbury Street

The article 360 Newbury Street 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:360 Newbury Street for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 360 Newbury Street

The article 360 Newbury Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:360 Newbury Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Disingenuous edits and summaries

Seriously, "rvv" to restore Oknazevad's disingenuous over-capitalization edit at Causeway Street elevated? I understand there are portions of his edit that might be good (I haven't reviewed those), but it's not up to me to reproduce the good parts of such a terrible edit. Why are you assuming it's up to me to fix his mess? Why not fix it yourself? Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Fully reverting an edit to an MOS-noncompliant state is generally not good editing. I called it vandalism (probably unfair, I will admit) because I felt it was done out of spite, as would have taken you ten seconds to change the disputed capitalization in a text editor while keeping the undisputed improvements. I feel that you calling Oknazevad "what's his name" in your original message here is a reflection of an attitude where you seem to treat anyone who disagrees with you as a pest to be brushed aside, not a fellow editor to reach an agreement with. While most of your editing outside of [US railway infrastructure] page moves is very good, I find you to be extremely difficult to productively work with because of your never-compromise attitude about capitalization, which is almost the only time I encounter you. While this wasn't what you came to my talk page for, I want to discuss that here in hope that I am misjudging you, and in hope we can come to an understanding and be less antagonistic.

In American English, many railway infrastructure and service names are proper nouns (Boylston Street Subway, Washington Street Elevated, Red Line, Canton Viaduct, Northeast Regional, Staples Subdivision, etc). That's the style used in the vast majority of reliable sources - environmental reports, hobbyist and history books, NRHP documentation - that are actually used in these articles. It reflects the American tendency to treat named infrastructure as proper nouns, like the Golden Gate Bridge and Empire State Building, and not merely the engineer's tendency to capitalize every noun. (Note that station articles use the lowercase, because "station" is capitalized in Capitalize Literally Every Noun sources but not in a significant number of others.) Some publications that would not typically be used as reliable sources for these articles - generally with brief mentions, and not written by authors with specific knowledge about rail transport - do not treat these as proper nouns.

In every disputed RM I have participated in, you treat these two groups of publications as if they are equally representative of the correct name, and as if they are equally represented in Google search results and scanned books. (Within my expertise areas of the MBTA, Amtrak, and the Bay Area, almost none of the major reference works have been scanned.) While obviously per WP:COMMONNAME we shouldn't be using official names if colloquial usage is consistently different, that's not the case for niche topics with very limited mentions - a few offhand mentions doesn't equal actual wider lowercase usage. In RMs, you have dismissed the reliable sources as overly technical, a characterization I strongly disagree with. These RMs tend to fall into rail editors versus style editors; that's not how consensus is supposed to work. It is incredibly frustrating to have these moves being supported primarily by editors who do not otherwise contribute to these articles, when there is an active community of editors with rail knowledge who disagree with the moves. It's only going to result in constantly disputed moves, and in increasing inconsistency in naming.

I want to see if we can find some common ground to avoid constant bickering about moves. What is your motivation for these moves - since the moves I've disagreed with have largely been one-off moves rather than part of a larger systematic renaming, what convinced you that these specific moves were important? Is there any specific evidence that will convince you that most US railway infrastructure should be treated as proper nouns? (Note that I'm not arguing that all should be - if a capitalized name is not consistently used in reliable sources, obviously the lowercase name is correct. If you propose any move of Rail Bridge, Northfield, Massachusetts, I'll support in a heartbeat.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The motivations on the downcasing is just to respect the principal that caps imply proper name, and that WP avoids them otherwise. Consistency in reliable sources is what we generally look at for that. I understand that it's not always clear and we may disagree on exactly what "consistently" or "reliable" means, which is why we have RM discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I called him "what's his name" because I couldn't remember his name when I was first writing to you. Some user names are harder than others for me to remember. I then went and looked it up and fixed it. No attitude implied. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting hypothesis that "almost none of the major reference works have been scanned". You should be quoting them if you have them. I have purchased quite a few of the cited sources on ships and military things and rail things and other disputed topics, so I could see for myself, but haven't found much to support the arguments of the over-capitalizers, like the guys who said that "a High Speed Train" is sensible capitalization for an HST train. The books on HST don't ever use such a construction. I realize that's a Brit issue, and you're talking American issues, but I do spend time and money to look into sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I do have them, and I do quote them. I listed the major print sources (all of which used capitalization) in the Causeway Street Elevated RM (in which your argument rested on an offhand reference in an physics paper, and a couple of 80-year-old magazines) and you dismissed them as "Modern overspecialized railfan histories". Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, those may be gold standards, as you say, for the history. But they collectively represent only a single data point on style, that of Bradley H. Clarke and the Boston Street Railway Association. It's a modern overspecialized railfan self-publishing club, with Clarke as its president, is it not? They even refer to their outings as "fantrips" (sometime "fan trips") and often capped as in "Lechmere Fantrip"; this is not our style. Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You know, if you're going to talk about me, you should at least give me the courtesy of a ping. Just saying.

As for the actual question, the way I see it is two fold. Firstly, I do think just googling a term, even if it's google books, is a poor and rather substitute for actually looking at what the best quality sources, the ones that we would actually use in the articles as references, actually do. Instead of dismissing them, they are what we should follow, because they are the items actually knowledgeable about the subject. In other words, the guideline to automatically lowercase when sources are mixed is poor, as it doesn't account for which sources are ones we would actually use in the article as references.

Secondly, there's the grammatical distinction of marking element. Take, as an example, the Second Avenue Subway. It's a subway line that runs under Second Ave in Manhattan. So the name is pretty darn descriptive. Some might even say uncreative. But there's a grammatical difference between "Second Avenue Subway" and "Second Avenue subway". The first is the name of a specific line. The second is a mere descriptive phrase. Neither are inaccurate, and both show up in some sources. But only one of them is the actual name of the line. That's not a matter of style, that's a matter of fact. Using a descriptive name is fine if there's no specific name for something, but when there is, we should use it. oknazevad (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't come here to talk about you, but about Pi's "rvv". And if you were right that most better sources cap "Subway" in "Second Avenue Subway", I'd expect to be able to see evidence of that among the sources cited. But going through in order, the first time I see it (capped in a sentence-like context) is in ref 15. And that's not actually its name. And not all names are capped. There's not much correct in what you're saying. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:GEO

You might find it interesting (or frustrating) to read WP:GEO and WP:OPCOORD. Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Twin Peaks Tunnel icons

About the Twin Peaks Tunnel, an icon for West Portal would be hard to make, due to the icon that shows that it is accessible and that is underground at the same time doesn't exist. VivaBlondie2000 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Then by all means, make one, or figure out how to overlay icons to get the effect you want. But putting accessibility into a footnote is a kludge and I will not affect it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for 360 Newbury Street

On 14 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 360 Newbury Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Tower Records store at 360 Newbury Street, Boston, was the largest record store in the United States upon its opening in 1987? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/360 Newbury Street. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 360 Newbury Street), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Salem station

The article Salem station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Salem station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hynes Convention Center station

The article Hynes Convention Center station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hynes Convention Center station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)