Talk:Joseph Scelsi Intermodal Transportation Center

Needs a history section
This article needs a history section, or at least a pre-history section. I suggest adding an image of the former Pittsfield Statin for anybody who writes one. DanTD (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A few years later, but it's complete. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I'd like to merge Union Station (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) and Pittsfield Depot into the History section here. Both are stub articles that are extremely limited on their own, because the history of railroading in Pittsfield is extremely complex. There have been no less than eight stations in total in Pittsfield, and their history is best understood in the context of each other. It would detract from the smooth flow to parcel some out to separate articles for no real benefit. Neither station was particularly architecturally significant (Meeks snubs them and instead mentions the 1840 station) nor widely historically important (neither still stands, and the second Union Station was not placed on the National Register) enough to merit separate articles. Undue weight should not be an issue; the article as it currently stands has a fairly balanced history and I don't see the text being substantially changed by the merge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me.--agr (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree If they still existed or were of historic importance it might have been better to retain them. The only reservation I have is that a series of small linked bites of information can often function better than an extremely long article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose, open to being convinced otherwise. We're getting pretty far afield from the transportation center. I think a better target would be History of rail transport in Pittsfield, Massachusetts (unwritten, but all the material is here). Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Support. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we're actually getting that far afield, geographically or topically. All the stations discussed here (save for the original Housatonic station, which has no description or image in any source I've gotten my paws on) are a direct series of replacements for the original 1840 depot. All except the 1965-1981 station are located within the same 2000-foot stretch of rail in downtown Pittsfield. Service patterns, owners, and other incidentals changed at different times than the stations did, which means there'd be a lot of repetition between articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sold! Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, but only since these structures don't exist anymore. Right now, creating the History of rail transport in Pittsfield, Massachusetts article would be very awkward unless some other history is written as well. epicgenius ( talk ) 01:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. although I do find Mackensens's suggestion of a History of rail transport in Pittsfield, Massachusetts article to be an interesting one. Would horsecar, and streetcar history be added to this article if it's written? -User:DanTD (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Up to the author, and it wouldn't be me! I think it would inevitably be in-scope if such were written, assuming sources exist. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Makes sense to me for the reasons already noted.FFM784 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns here, as it makes no sense to split them up like that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This makes perfect sense, it probably shouldn't be separate articles anyway. RES2773 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)RES2773
 * Support This article is a fine example of how railroad station articles should be written. The amount of material in the proposed merge subjects is not so overwhelming as to disrupt the quality of content and the proposal itself is sensible. The resulting redirects should probably point to the most appropriate subsection for each station building. Slambo (Speak)  15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Slambo that this is an excellent example of a good rail article. Pi.1415926535 has done a great job with finding images and filling in the history using several sources. My only request would be for someone to add the New York New Haven and Hartford services to the former services list at the top of the page. Well done.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say this has been left up here for enough time, would anyone like to perform the merger? If asked, I would be willing to do so! RES2773 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply - I'm surprised the merger hasn't taken place already. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this seems to be unanimous, I'll do so now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)