Talk:Wakefield station (MBTA)

Merger proposal
I propose that Wakefield Upper Depot be merged into this article as they are the same station. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Weak Oppose with the possibility of Support - Originally I was willing to consider suggesting a merger based on the photograph in the Wakefield Upper Depot picture. However the stations at this link which I added to the MBTA station article, not to mention a Google StreetView search, reminded me that the "Upper Depot" is apparently at the southeast corner of Tuttle and Chestnut Streets? BTW, we should invite User:Faolin42 in on this discussion. DanTD (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed the discussion. I think Image:Upper Depot, Wakefield MA.jpg is truly the historic Wakefield Upper Depot.  It's now home to a ReMax office whose address matches the NRHP listing, 25 Tuttle Street.  I also have a picture of the modern MBTA platform at .  I have a picture along the west side of the tracks, showing the relationship between the modern platform and the old Image:Upper Depot, Wakefield MA.jpg.  They're right next to each other.  If you like I can upload one or both pictures to Wikimedia so you can take a look.  Faolin42 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the articles more closely. The articles contradict each other a little.  Wakefield Upper Depot refers to the 1889 station, so I think the my picture matches the article Image:Upper Depot, Wakefield MA.jpg.
 * However, the Wakefield (MBTA station) acticle says that Wakefield Upper Depot refers to the 1950s building located to the north on Tuttle and Chestnut Streets.
 * So one question to resolve is whether Wakefield Upper Depot is the 1889 building or the 1950s building. Faolin42 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's what I've got from the link I mentioned; This is another image of the MBTA station, which is also the ReMax dealership. At the same time, here's the one said to be from the 1950's which is on the corner of Tuttle and Chestnut. Honestly, I would've thought the latter one was older, both due to the structure the style, and the apparent NRHP status. DanTD (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the pictures of the platforms Faolin42 says he has; I know he offered to send them to me by e-mail and considered accepting them, but since you're now offering to post them here, I say go ahead. DanTD (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the images in a little mini-gallery Faolin42 (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look in the picture on the left, you can see the corner of the station canopy and how the Re/Max old station building abuts the platform. The point of merging the two articles was because no matter which building at the station is on the national register, it is still the same station. This article is about the station, which includes the buildings that it consists of today and what it used to consist of. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that, and I understand the point of merging them, because I've done this plenty of times myself. I just wasn't 100% sure these two were worth merging. On the one hand Stephen, you and Faolin clearly know the area better than I do. On the other hand, there's still the issue of that other station house supposedly from the 1950's, which from what I've seen is now used as a bank/ATM shelter. If they are merged, the article is going to need some serious rewriting. Incidentally, that site has a link in the notes section, which is unfortunatley dead. DanTD (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I don't have a preference either way on the merge/don't merge. I'm more a picture guy than an editor. Faolin42 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, but I still have plenty of questions and doubts about this. DanTD (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thanks! I just updated the coordinates in the article to point to the Upper Depot building. As usual with the NRHP coordinates, they're off by half a block.  Not sure why.  Faolin42 (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Many of the older NRHP coordinates are off by the same relatively short distance, in the same direction, in a given area, because they were measurements off the U.S. Geological Survey quadrant maps or other perfectly reliable sources for their time. But, the current geological system was changed in what is called the "North American Datum" change of 1983, which moved everything in the U.S. except near Chicago.  Google maps and everyone else now uses the current system.  Hope this helps or is interesting.... :) --doncram (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

MOVE TO CLOSE This has been merged for more than a year. Can we, or should we close this thread? DanTD (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)