User talk:Mackensen/Archive26

May 23: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

NYNH&H stations (and a couple other things)
How do you wish to choose which NYNH&H stations are and aren't shown in templates, given that stopping patterns varied through the decades? For example: there was formerly a Hebronville station between P/CF and Attleboro (see map), but it was probably gone by the 1950s. Conversely, Worcester-bound trains ceased stopping at Groton at some point; by 1955, Norwich was the first stop after New London. (Similarly, Clinton was the first stop after Westbrook by then.) I'm not picky about how we decide which stations to show (perhaps only those in this 1955 timetable?), but we should be consistent.

Second, could you take a quick look at this GA review I'm working on? I'm feeling like the author is being unreasonably obstinate (refusing to accept any of my suggestions about the structure of the article) and somewhat WP:OWN-y ("We can discuss the merits of citation templates if you like, but the bottom line is I won't be doing it." rather bothered me), but it's also entirely possible that I'm just being too picky.

Third, you really ought to archive your talk page - it's getting a bit unwieldy at this point. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point about stations, one that's applicable for other former railroads as well. I'd like to straddle a line between inclusive and useful--a sea of redlinks aren't navigable. I've been working from a couple sources: that 1955 timetable, a 1967 timetable, a Penn Central employee timetable from 1974, Official Guides of the Railways from 1910 and 1950, and the USRA Final System Plan which led to the creation of Conrail. I'm leaning toward the 1955 timetable as representative, although obviously if someone writes an article about a pre-1955 station it should be included.
 * Re Groton, I was aware of Groton station (Connecticut) but didn't link to it because I wasn't sure it was the same station site. A Worcester-bound train couldn't have stopped there, right?
 * Happy to have a look at said GA and offer whatever feedback I can.
 * Talk page archived. I've settled into the April-April archive, but I never remember to do it. Thanks for the reminder :). Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding Mason, I'd certainly prefer to see citation templates used for references, but I wouldn't making it a sticking point for a GA review. The article structure doesn't seem too unusual; I read over the review and I can understand why the author made the choices he did. On some GA reviews I've done the citation maintenance myself, but usually they were transport articles where I felt comfortable with the subject matter. WP:CITEVAR is in play here as well. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There have been a few different station locations in Groton - the original Groton Bank stations (where Pfizer is now), one right at the wye that served both Boston and Worcester trains, the short-lived Amtrak station east of the wye at Bridge Street, and Poquonnock (Midway) station where Bluff Point State Park is. My intention is to cover all of them in the article, as they share a great deal of common history.


 * Westbrook is the only example I can think of on the NH system (other than a few now-CTfastrak stations) where a station discontinued that early on a line that retained passenger service is a current or likely article. I think we can handle those one-by-one when they occur.


 * Thanks for the GA comments. I'll continue with the review. I'll never understand why some editors are so resistant to using citation templates - I would be quite useless at citing anything without them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Speaking of succession templates, your input would be valuable on Talk:Tower City Center. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Highland Branch, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages House & Garden and Newton Highlands station ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Highland_Branch check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Highland_Branch?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:NETransit
Could you help me with NETransit? I'm trying to set it up that it will say "Page numbers are accurate to the, version." (with a link) after the cite web if the parameter has a YYYYMMDD code, and say nothing otherwise. Right now, the former works, but it throws an error if the version is not specified. I'm sure there's some basic template function I'm unaware of. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fixed. You need to ensure there's a value to compare against, even if it's 0. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

== June 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (and Pratt Women Wikipedia Design this Saturday June 16) ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

DYK nomination of Highland Branch
Hello! Your submission of Highland Branch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Highland Branch
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Laughingmatters95
Another ducky Oanabay sock, it appears. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fair guess. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Caltrain s-rail templates
Do you have any thoughts on how to handle the oversized s-rail templates for Caltrain? On some stations, like Millbrae station, it's as tall as the rest of the infobox. My first thought would be to only show peak-direction Baby Bullet patterns (reducing 4 rows to 2) and figure out some way to simplify the limited patterns (2 rows into 1). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never liked showing service patterns in the templates. It's one thing with the Baby Bullet where there's an actual article on the service and the stopping patterns are dramatically different. That said, Caltrain does call them out in the published timetables. I think I'd collapse down to a maximum of three rows (local, limited, and express), and alter the service names to link out to the "Train numbering scheme" section to make it clear that these are real groupings. I've interacted with the Caltrain articles for years without realizing that. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughts! There are two distinct Baby Bullet patterns, but I think it should be reducible to a maximum four rows in most cases. I've also linked the service patterns as you suggested. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also appreciate your thoughts at Template talk:S-rail/lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thursday July 12: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ Jefferson Market Library
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-line/HK-MTR left/761P
Template:S-line/HK-MTR left/761P has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg
Okay, I'll have some time this weekend to potentially do a merge. Think I should boldly merge, or do a merge request? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to say that no discussion is necessary, given the precedent of Illini and Saluki and also Chicagoan and Kansas Cityan which I earlier this year. There's no contrary facts; Carl Sandburg was added at the same time as the Saluki and for the same reason. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, done! I'm cleaning up templates, wikidata, etc now. Does Template:Amtrak Carl Sandburg need a proper deletion discussion, or can you speedy it as redundant? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sunday July 29: Annual Wiki-Picnic @ Prospect Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Question about railroad line categories
How are you treating situations where an old railroad built a station that was used by Amtrak, then was replaced with a new station close nearby. Leaving the old "former railroad station" or removing it completely? Example of Pontiac station (Illinois) where I've been changing Category:Alton Railroad stations to Category:Former Chicago and Alton Railroad stations. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 02:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If the history of the former station is covered in the new article I tend to leave the category in place (assuming there's no separate article on the former station). Otherwise, I take the category out. I doubt I've been 100% consistent. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:HK-MTR stations
Template:HK-MTR stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

disaster with respect to Soo Line Depot disambiguation
Hey, what's up? You have destroyed the previously existing disambiguation of places named "Soo Line Depot", replacing it with a list of places seemingly NOT named "Soo Line Depot". Hey that's unacceptable. Among other things, you deleted legitimate redlink entries for places of that name which are notable by dint of their being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. For now, I am going to restore the previous version. I do believe you have information that is appropriate to be incorporated somehow, although not at cost of making the disambiguation page completely non-compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. Please discuss at Talk:Soo Line Depot and/or here, and ping me or post to my Talk page if I seem not to notice postings. I do appreciate you are surely trying to improve Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, i see also that in this edit you removed a category of Northern Pacific Railway stations from a place which is now a museum. I expect that it is no longer a current railway station, but our categories and list-articles include former places as well as current ones.  I will revert that change.  Hey, what's up, are you by chance new here?  I am not sure what to do in terms of reviewing all of your recent changes for possible reversions, and/or posting at a noticeboard for others to review what you're doing.  You also moved many railway station articles, without using the wp:RM process (which works really well to bring to bear considered judgment).  I am not into having conflict, but these several edits seem rash. --Doncram (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I left a comment at Northern Pacific Railway Museum explaining my rationale there. Regarding moves, WP:RM really isn't necessary for uncontroversial move. There's strong consensus that NRHP names (which weren't even followed in many cases) aren't appropriate for railway station articles. I think that's settled, else I wouldn't have done it. Inasmuch as "Soo Line Depot" is often used to refer to some of those stations I pointed them at where the articles are actually located. If they should be titled with the NRHP names instead (where accurate and appropriate) I have no objection to that, though I question the utility of such a change. On your last point, it's my impression that disambiguation pages do not in general contain red links. I used to add them myself and found I would get reverted, so I stopped the practice. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * To isolate just one point, redlinks are explicitly allowed on disambiguation pages, per MOS:DABRL. A redlink entry is supposed to also include a bluelink to a regular article that shows the redlink in context, i.e. supports the idea that the topic is Wikipedia-notable.  On the Soo Line Depot disambiguation page, there were three redlink entries which were not in fact supported by bluelinks.  So, a combative deletionist/obstructionist literal obstinate Wikipedia editor (not saying at all that you are one;  you are in fact reporting some lack of full understanding of the type of conflict that goes on sometimes) could claim to be justified in simply deleting them.  However, if you clicked on their redlinks, and then on "what links here", you would have found the corresponding NRHP list-articles which link to them.  And, i would much prefer that you or others simple improve the disambiguation page entries by adding those corresponding bluelinks in a supporting fashion, as I have now done at that disambiguation page.  You mention having had redlinks deleted;  I hope you will be supportive of defending good redlinks in the future. --Doncram (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on the question of red links on disambiguation pages; though it amounts to a technicality. In my case there were no additional links from other articles. It's a minor matter. Mackensen (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks about this. About whether it "amounts to a technicality" and that it's "a minor matter", well that is a matter of perspective. In the past there have been editors who basically attacked disambiguation pages in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles with many tens or hundreds or thousands of edits based on their perspective about what matters, at great cost to me and other editors.  I am not bent on proving you wrong in some way.  I would simply like for good naming of articles to stand, and for good disambiguation pages helping readers to find their way to these articles, to stand.  I don't understand what you mean by "In my case there were no additional links from other articles":  as I said the redlink items did have incoming links from NRHP list-articles.  Again there should have been supporting bluelinks already like what I just added, like "NRHP-listed in whatever County, State", so your not seeing their deeper, fundamental validity is understandable.  In general, wherever there are conflicts in Wikipedia, it helps if editors can narrow the field of disagreement/non-understanding before bringing matters to a larger forum for review. --Doncram (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm unaware of these broader conflicts; I'm simply saying that when my links were removed no articles beyond the disambiguation page linked to those articles. Per the guideline you linked those links should (and were) removed. That's all. I have no strong views on this particular question and consider it closed. Mackensen (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you seem to be re-asserting something false. For example, the Soo Line Depot (Remer, Minnesota) redlink item in the Soo Line Depot disambiguation page, the article National Register of Historic Places listings in Cass County, Minnesota linked to that redlink.  Similarly for two others that you deleted.  The correct thing to do editorially would be to add the supporting bluelink.  Same for two other items there.  It's not true that "no articles beyond the disambiguation page linked to those articles". --Doncram (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm referring to an incident years ago, in which my addition of red links was reverted, which formed my impression of how to handle disambiguation pages. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop with moves of railway stations
Hey, I see in your recent edit history multiple moves of railway station articles, including this move. I think these are moves are all controversial and are not compliant with guidelines. Please don't move any more. I will, today or tomorrow, open a review of all of these to have them all moved back probably. You moved them to names that you seem to be assuming, by your original research or your own original reasoning, to be "common names" for these places, without regard for actual common/official names existing for the places. This is not right. You should have used the formal wp:RM process, but perhaps you did not view these moves as likely to be controversial. --Doncram (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. These moves are all correct and per established naming policy, and your aggressive tone here is ridiculous. That move you linked to was perfectly fine to make without a RM, and I would have done the same. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've probably made over a hundred such moves over the last few months. I don't think these are at all controversial. Far from using original research or reasoning I'm following Naming conventions (US stations), which is a guideline. I'm unaware of any guideline which says that one or more names listed on the NRHP form should be preferred. Certainly it shouldn't be accepted as an official name as many such names are clearly descriptive. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, noted that you have done a lot more, which I think are likely to include more controversial ones. And noted that some other editor is supportive of your recent moves.  Do let's continue to be civil.  However, my request stands.  It may take more effort now to review and retrieve more of your moves, for a full discussion.  Thanks.  --Doncram (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could draw my attention to the policies and guidelines which inform your claim that these moves are controversial. Simply stating that the are doesn't make them so, and doesn't give me much to go on to understand where you're coming from. Mackensen (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly a standard "X station" name is better than the jumbled mess that the NRHP gives its stations. There are numerous stations that are listed under awful titles such as "X railroad-Y depot" or even listed under a far newer railroad. (Burlington Northern Depot seems to be be common) The one station that I saw that I could have some objection to is Omaha station (Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad), which seems to have common name usage of "Burlington Station" in sources and the current use as a TV station. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 01:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's always been my concern with NRHP names. They're descriptive and obviously not official in any context beyond the NRHP. That's fine and I'm happy to note them in the NRHP infobox and somewhere in the main text, but we can't use them to settle article titles when there's a specific guideline in play.
 * Regarding Omaha, my concern there is that "Burlington Station" or "Burlington station" could in generic parlance mean any station connected with the CB&Q, its ancestors and descendants, and also any station in place named Burlington. It's getting disambiguated no matter what. Better to lead with the place where the station is found. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, i understand from your move of this NRHP-listed railway station that you are giving me a big "fuck you" to my request that you do not make further moves. I do sincerely regard this as contested.  In my opinion, you appear to be basically making shit up, for the sake of making shit up that seems more common to you, rather than accepting somewhat more formal National Register of Historic Places listed names.  I requested that you do not make contested moves.  My assertion that your moves are contested is evidence that they are contested.  Great.  See you in court, so to speak, in a day or two. --Doncram (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * NRHP names are not always suitable for article titles. For one thing, every word in the name is usually capitalized even if the name is obviously invented or entirely descriptive (e.g. "28th Street Subway Station (IRT)", which we can't use in its entirety for multiple reasons). MOS explicitly encourages avoiding capitalization as much as possible. Jc86035 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Until you answer my question regarding policies and guidelines (see above) I don't know that there's much more to discuss here. As should be clear to you from the discussion here, far from "making shit up" I'm following guidelines which enjoy consensus. That you apparently don't like these guidelines does not, in itself, make these or other moves "controversial." All the best, Mackensen (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you're starting to move pages despite the discussion here. That seems unproductive. Mackensen (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

For those who have been following along at home, I have opened a formal move request at Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot. This strikes me as avoidable bureaucracy, but needs must. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Before any more mass moves of articles about places on the National Register, please discuss this with the NRHP project at some central location. Jonathunder (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you point me in the direction of the guideline which the NRHP project uses in determining the names of articles? I looked around but couldn't find one. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We tend to go by WP:COMMONNAME broadly and sources for individual articles specifically, which means we don't generally impose names globally and frown on mass moves. But let's discuss this. Jonathunder (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been my impression that articles are simply named after whatever's in the NRHP forms; it's questionable at best that these represent the common name. If the project does tend to depart from these then that's probably wise but (a) that's not reflected in the articles I've encountered and (b) that suggests we should employ naming guidelines where possible so that we're not reinventing the wheel on each and every page. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Depew station
The disambiguation page Depew station has four entries, three of which are only red links. Per MOS:DABRED, “A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link.” Searching Wikipedia shows that there are no other links to (or even mentions of) those other stations, only the new one.

Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are supposed to help the reader to navigate to the article they want. Thus, there must be a blue link (and only one!) for each entry. This page will probably eventually become a dab page, but only after articles on the other stations are written. Right now, it makes a good redirect to Buffalo–Depew station. — Gorthian (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a follow-up article right now, and I had (per MOS:DABRED) created red links to all the articles in question. I'm not sure why you didn't see them, but they exist. Lehigh Valley Terminal links to the Erie and Lehigh Valley Railroad articles, while Buffalo Central Terminal links to the New York Central article. That aside, Buffalo–Depew station doesn't discuss the complicated back history of the three other stations and isn't a good target. Mackensen (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I figured you were working on them. :-) But MOS:DABRED doesn’t say that a red link is okay as an entry; it says that there must be a blue-linked article for each entry, too (with certain conditions).I did find two of your red links in an article, where they showed up as the next stations on a line, but linking that article really didn’t give the reader any information about the other stations. (I missed them because I was searching on “Depew station” and they show as just “Depew”.)Leave the redirect for now; when your new article(s) is ready, that’s when to make the dab page. — Gorthian (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

About the protection of "Union Medical Healthcare Limited"
I know that there are sources that show it is credible, but it is mostly in Chinese. It seems like it is notable enough at only the Chinese circle.-- 1233 Talk 07:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no strong views; frankly I didn't remember-speedy deleting and protecting the article. Draft:Union Medical Healthcare Limited need to go through the WP:AFC process, which is backlogged. The draft is certainly better-written (and shorter) than the previous version. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

six, and remembered --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

thank you today for Superliner (railcar), about "a bilevel intercity railcar employed by Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States. The first cars entered service in 1979 and are the backbone of Amtrak's fleet west of the Mississippi River. Their design descends from the revolutionary Budd Hi-Level.! - Looking forward to Monteverdi's birthday! After-PR thoughts about his vespers welcome, - I want to go for FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Hi-Level, about "a bilevel intercity railcar which ran in the United States from 1954–2018. It entered service in 1954 with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway's El Capitan. It was the first type of bilevel intercity railcar in the United States. The Hi-Levels remained in service with Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States, from 1971–2018, after the end of most private sector passenger service in the United States. Their design influenced the Superliner, which entered service in 1978 and remains the backbone of Amtrak's fleet west of the Mississippi River."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

August 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

New Haven State Street station
Hello, I have opened a discussion on Talk:New Haven State Street station re: the lede. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

September 26: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

"Train station"
While researching my RM of Van Nuys train station, I came across Bristol Train Station. It's NRHP but not at the NRHP name, and a likely future Amtrak station. Could you do the move to Bristol station (Virginia)? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll leave a note on the talk page about the Transdominion article. Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop with moves of railway stations (2)
Hi, I recall previously posting here, and my browser recalls it too, suggesting "Stop with moves of railway stations" as section title. And there was an organized wp:RM about one of your previous moves, which ended with your preferred naming NOT being accepted, and I thought that you would absorb that as feedback from the community. Please do stop. You have been informed, now, again, that other editor(s) perceive your moves to be controversial, and therefore you should not make any such moves without a proper wp:RM process. For places listed on the NRHP, please give notice of any RM at wt:NRHP.

I see in section above that your recent move of a Virginia railway station was per a request. I noticed it separately, already, and reverted it. I also noticed your move of Lester Depot, which I returned to the name supported in sourcing, and I removed your unsupported assertion that it is named "Lester station". Per the previous RM discussion, and per all usual Wikipedia practices, you are not allowed to impose any personal preference you have for how places should be named; you must follow wikipedia article naming practices, which basically follow documented common naming.

Your moves have been labelled with link to wp:USSTATION, which by my reading does not support your moves. That essay(?) states the obvious fact that numerous railway stations have common names, and those commons names are what should be used. I don't get why the essay gives any guidance at all for how to name railway stations which do not have common names, as I doubt that wikipedia should cover any such places.

Please also see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations). Depending on how that goes, I will seek to have wp:USSTATION clarified or deleted. But as it stands now, it does not provide justification for moving any train stations from their names supported in sources. --Doncram (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mackensen’s moves have all been perfectly kosher according to consensus and the guidelines. Please keep up the good work.—Cúchullain t/ c 11:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

== Sun October 14: Open House New York Weekend Upload Party @ NYU ITP and Indigenous People's Justice Edit-a-thon @ Interference Archive ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

October 24: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday Oct 28: Wikidata Birthday Party
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

WP:IRLSTATION and Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations)
Hi Mackensen, as you were instrumental in crafting WP:USSTATION, I'd much appreciate if you could take a look at two proposed station conventions, WP:IRLSTATION and Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations). The former is pretty much ready but the second one needs more work and some decision making.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Buffalo, New York
Hello. I mistakenly reverted one of your edits in Buffalo, New York few weeks ago. I do not know why I was confused about your edit -- I thought you were deleting information when you were in fact simply separating a blob of texts into two paragraphs. I have reverted the section back, to reflect the changes you tried to make. My apologies. K2323 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for the note. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Builder - redux
Hi Mackensen - you kindly found a URL allowing me to download The Buider vol 61 a few days ago. I have the PDF, downloaded via your link; but find today that the link you supplied gets me an Error 403. Mainly out of academic interest, but also because I'd like to provide a link against a couple of commons images which I've uploaded from the PDF ... do you have a clue what's causing the 403, or a clue as to how you got the link in the first place (I'm thinking it might have been weirdly time-limited)? The Resource Request discussion is here. Any light you can shed would be most welcome. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea about the 403. I obtained the link by clicking on the "Ebook - free" link at the left, which I assumed is suppressed for you. That added it to my library, and I was able to get a download link. Possibly the links are time-limited? Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good to know. Yes, suppressed. Not a huge problem; and I've asked them to make it full access in the UK, so fingers crossed. Thanks again for your help - it's yielded a couple of lovely images at the top of the new Battersea Town Hall. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks great, well done! Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

January 13: Wikimedia NYC invites you to Wikipedia Day 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Highland Branch
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Highland Branch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Highland Branch
The article Highland Branch 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:Highland Branch for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Highland Branch
The article Highland Branch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Highland Branch 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

"Generic template" edits
What's up with shoving Rail color and station link into all those RDTs? Besides replacing smaller, system-specific templates, you're also introducing unnecessary code bloat! For example, in this, compare: then multiply by the ten or twenty – or 100 – rows of each diagram…

And then there's also the pointless increase in server load: PLR color is a nice, simple  statement that returns a hex value, whereas &#123;&#123;Rail color|PAAC}} invokes Module:Adjacent stations (1,000+ lines of code) that executes the local function , which is an unacceptable REDUNDANTFORK from PLR color. And did it ever occur to you to at least place a note on the perfectly good existing templates to the effect that you’ve gone and created all these forking sub-modules? The least you could do is reduce the amount of dross you’ve added and use the short forms “rcr”, “rcb” and “stl”. (I suppose that changing the old templates into wrappers/redirects for the S-line calls would be too much ask.) Useddenim (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Adjacent stations is a replacement for the S-line family of templates. I didn't create the base system, but I did implement for PAAC and other systems. It's an improvement in a number of ways. For one, Module:Adjacent stations/PAAC replaces at least four main templates: Template:PLR color, Template:PLR lines, Template:PLR stations, and Template:PLR style, plus all the related sub-templates of S-line for that particular system. All the interrelated display information for a system are unified in a single place. I see no effective purpose in using the "short form" over the "long form"; it doesn't make a material difference in page load and reduces the readability of the underlying code. If that's a change you want to make, fine, but I can't see that it makes much difference. Regarding the use of, I would point out that every single link it generated was a redirect because it didn't leverage the actual system station templates, and thus didn't account for the fact that those articles moved years ago. Station link does, and that's a real benefit. Finally, character count doesn't translate to an increase in server load. You'd need to look at the actual byte usage in template expansion. I can't recall that ever being a big deal with s-line, and I seriously doubt it is with these LUA modules. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, passing a generic blue into PLR color, for example, isn't very resilient and it's how we wind up with five aliases for every line. There are two "Blue" colored lines in the Pittsburgh system. Calling one of them explicitly is no bad thing. Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Further regarding performance, you can compare the pre-conversion and current iterations of Template:Pittsburgh Blue Line:
 * It's basically a wash, and the addition of 602 bytes of wikimarkup doesn't register. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: LVRR
You're a far better coder than I am. I am doing this with what little knowledge I can muster. Mitch 32 (My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 04:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ani
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Cards84664  (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Amtrak Lincoln Service
I think you understand this stuff so would you please check the edit on 11 December 2018‎ by a new user at Template:Amtrak Lincoln Service. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fine. It's true that the Empire Builder and Hiawatha Service are available northbound connections out of Chicago, but there's no relationship with the Lincoln Service. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Module:Rail
I saw that Ythlev recreated Template:Sidebar Rail, and it once again referred to Adjacent stations as the "Old version" I have re-redirected all instances of Module:Rail to Module:Adjacent stations. If you want to pursue an afd of Module:Rail, be my guest.  Cards84664  (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll backtrack on that, I'll do the nomination. Thank you for the correct name.  Cards84664  (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a refactoring, provided there's a good reason and steps taken to prevent breakage. This certainly isn't the way to go about it, and it's interfering with the normal development of the module. Mackensen (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Metrolinx
You seem to have misinterpreted the function of Metrolinx. They do not actually operate anything. They fund and construct projects but the operation is given over to either the local transit authority or GO Transit for regional operations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying Metrolink operated anything, but they do appear to be a container which holds UPE, GO Transit, and the transitway, among other projects. That doesn't make UPE "part" of GO Transit. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Adjacent Stations/PAAC
Hey, I've been working on articles of each station on the West Busway operated by the Port Authority of Allegheny County. So far I've done Carnegie and Bell. However, the adjacent stations module isn't working for me because I have had to name the articles "Carnegie station (PAAC)" and "Bell station (PAAC)" respectively, rather than whatever you have the data set as. I know almost nothing about the module itself, and was just wondering if you could help out.

Thanks, Bacon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacon BMW (talk • contribs) 03:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, nice work on those articles. Bell and Carnegie needed to be added as exceptions to the standard naming rule in the module. I've added them: . Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Station link template
Hi Mackensen! I have been away from Wikipedia for a while to focus on real life, but have recently been trying to return. I was looking through the edits of the articles I care about the most, and found this edit you made earlier this month. I'm not quite sure why the templates had to be changed from amtk to station link. I know there's been this whole thing about using the new adjacent stations module: maybe you can explain that bit to me and I'll understand it? If it was necessary, why not save characters and use stl? Thanks in advance! –Daybeers (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue with Amtk is that it uses, which is deprecated in favor of Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak (used in conjunction with ). Station link supports both; it falls back to traditional s-line templates if there's no Adjacent stations module defined. There's an ongoing discussion, which I believe you've participated in, at Template talk:Amtk about either updating that template to support the new data module or simply deprecating it. I don't think it's a big deal to save a couple characters; it doesn't affect page load speed or anything else. Mackensen (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't it just be a redirect? There are many pages that link to the template, so it would be a pain to have to change the templates on each article as well as the route templates. The advantage to using the adjacent stations module is speed, correct? –Daybeers (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several advantages to the Adjacent stations module. Speed is one; centralizing all the s-line functionality (including the line templates) in a single place is another. It also eliminates the need for the complex rows and hide logic; it handles all that automatically. The template could absolutely be redirected, and I suggested that as a possibility. The only issue is that Adjacent stations doesn't support the state parameter; anything using that would need to be updated. The Amtrak adjacent stations module uses line-based disambiguation and a few special keys. Anyway, we should have this conversation at Template talk:Amtk. I'd created a demonstration redirected module earlier in the month and linked to it from there. Mackensen (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

== March 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Module:Adjacent stations/RTA Rapid Transit
Can you help me figure out what I did wrong?  Cards84664  (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Misplaced bracket that was preventing the module from recognizing any lines after Blue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

McGregor station (BC)
A year or so ago, when I read this article as a complete novice in Wikipedia matters, I was so taken back by its glaring inaccuracies that I added the warning, '''The information in paragraph 2 is wholly inaccurate. A corrected version has been added to the McGregor, British Columbia article'''. This paragraph has since been removed and replaced by a disputed factual accuracy warning. I can vouch that the McGregor, BC article is accurate in essence (awaiting the input of additional information and the correction of minor errors), but the McGregor station one is largely misinformation, confirmable by a cursory review of railway timetables.

I assume the reference to the McGregor, BC article was removed because the narrative regarding the post-office location in the BC Geographical Names website was confused with the station location. This is an understandable mistake, because the article could easily be misinterpreted by anyone unfamiliar with the subject matter. I am progressively updating the Wikipedia articles for the East Line towns, drawing upon my latest sources of railway and other material, but this is a slow and time-consuming process. Unfortunately, the only article to date that fully embraces this data is Shelley, BC. A glance at the "Railway" section of that article should indicate that I equally possess a fairly comprehensive knowledge of other East Line stops such as McGregor.

What is now called McGregor has never been anything but a flag stop. The former community is long gone and if a station building ever existed, it would have been merely a small shelter. Dewey, on the other hand, like Guilford, had a station building, but the nearest community was a mile or two away. If the Grand Trunk Pacific had chosen a different route, the various places would never have appeared on the map. The history of the towns, which largely revolved around the lumber industry, cannot be divorced from the railway's presence. Consequently, the railway section of the respective Wikipedia articles for the communities is fundamental.

Stub articles such as Willow River station, Aleza Lake station, Upper Fraser station, McGregor station, Hutton station (Hutton Mills reference another confusion with PO name), Longworth station, Penny station, and Dome Creek station, are misleading in that they are not even stations, but merely flag stops with no platforms or buildings whatsoever. The passenger train passes each way only once every second day, and with so few residents, stops at most locations would be a rarity. These stub articles contain no additional information not included in the respective articles for the actual communities themselves, and any intrinsic value these articles may have once possessed no longer exists.

I recommend to you as a Wikipedia authority to attach a notification for the removal of these insignificant articles and to reinstate the railway categories for the respective community articles themselves, so that anyone selecting those categories for research purposes, or is reading a Wikipedia article linking to those categories, can at least gain some useful information on what is and has been the railroad's impact on those localities. I suspect if these stub articles had been written today, they would not have passed a Wikipedia review to move beyond the draft stage.

I became involved in Wikipedia in late 2017, when I stumbled upon "Hansard (railway point)", which was scheduled for deletion. Although I now realize that much of my understanding at the time was flaky, I at least knew there was something worth saving. My now more informed self cannot say the same for the respective articles on minor flag stops that stretch from Willow River to Dome Creek. I appreciate, that like me, railroads are your special interest, but as a BC resident, I can assure you these specimens are not worth resuscitating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMBanks1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your coming by. I should start by noting that I know very little about British Columbia and edited this set of articles because I was working on Via Rail station/stops in general. I replaced your manual warning with the accuracy disputed template because that's the common way to indicate a problem, and because it wasn't clear to me what the problem actually was. I now have a better understanding of the situation and can offer a few suggestions. I'm not sure there's any consensus on what to do with flag stops, particularly when there are no facilities. A redirection to the community in question might be appropriate, but if so the categories should remain on the redirect, and not on the community. The latter looks wrong, and they'll probably get removed. I think the flag stop question should be raised with a broader audience, probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + April 4 and 5: LaGuardia Community College Translatathon 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Barstow Harvey House
I came across this article today and noticed you indefinitely semi-protected it three years ago. Do you think it still needs to be semi-protected? It seems like most of the vandalism took place in late 2015, and hopefully the vandals have moved on with their lives by now. I figured I should ask you before changing it myself, though. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge, I'd forgotten all about protecting the article. I've unprotected, and we'll see how things go. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

E60
Do you have a copy of the Cudder source for the E60? The sentence in the E60 article is the only reference I've seen to E60s operating on the Keystone Service. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have mail. Mackensen (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Adjacent stations/Brightline
Module:Adjacent stations/Brightline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Daybeers (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dollar General Bowl logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Dollar General Bowl logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Rail templates
Hey, could you take a look at these templates? They are unused but you haven't nominated them so wasn't sure what their status is. Template:SE-Hesse color, Template:SE-Hesse lines, Template:SEMTA lines, Template:SEMTA stations, Template:SEPTA lines/branches, Template:SEQ-rail-network, Template:SESHR lines, Template:SESHR stations, Template:SFP&P color, Template:SFP&P lines, Template:SFP&P stations, Template:SFSR station. Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can speedy those if you'd like.  Cards84664  (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I expected Template:SEPTA lines/branches to be deleted along with Template:SEPTA lines; it's tagged G8 now. Haven't looked at the others yet. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)