User talk:Jasstew

January 2015
Hello, I'm IJBall. Your recent edit to the page Chicago 'L' appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. But note that there is a definitional difference between "route length" and "track length" – please see here. Thank you. --IJBall (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is also from the "official site": CTA Facts at a Glance Your reference doesn't "negate" this one (it fact they complement each other). But you need to read this link I gave you above: Network length (transport) – It explains the difference between "route length" and "track length". They aren't the same thing, and every train's Infobox is supposed to quote the former, not the latter (actually, some specialized Infoboxes do show the latter, but under the specific parameter 'track_length', not 'system_length'). If you want to quote Track length figure in the Chicago 'L' article, you are well within your rights (I think it might already be mentioned, actually). But they aren't the same thing, and most people are more interested in route length, and you can't put in "track length" when "route length" is what is being quoted. --IJBall (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. While the 'L' maybe the "second longest rapid transit system" in the U.S. by track length (which I think is what CTA is claiming in your original reference), they aren't second longest in the U.S. in terms of route length, which is what most of these articles are using as their primary "metric" of rapid transit system length. --IJBall (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)