User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 13

'''This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from April 2020 (the end of Archive 12) to July 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.'''

Arts on the Line
Hola-- You just reverted an edit I made regarding the title and description of the William Reimann bollards. This is the name I've always known the pieces by, and whoever put that information up initially--well, I couldn't check out their citation because the link is dead. I guess this is a "needs citation" for the title, and I don't know where to get that. So I guess just leave it. But the description--you are better off putting what I wrote (or rephrasing it how you like if you don't like what I wrote) and saying "citation needed," because what is there is just a guess from the person who first filled in this field, as best as I can tell.

Is this the correct place to be writing this? I've been working on stuff here since the corona shut ins started, so am still figuring things out. If the title and description need to stay the same for now, no issue. I'm working on a lot of different art topics right now, so--it can wait. It's not like it's bothered anyone however long it's been up there.Sicklemoon (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

And another thought--I've been updating the List of public art in Boston. Would you be interested in looking over that? I also put the biography for Susumu Shingu up--that definitely needs improvement because there's just not a lot online for these pre-Internet generation artists. I'd also add (and evidently it is too late here for me to be typing anything correctly--there is a List of public art in Cambridge, Massachusetts which I find well-meaning but somewhat grim. Do you have any recommendations for that? Sicklemoon (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice to meet you! I looked for a source to support the "Arrival Stelae" name and couldn't find one; contemporary documents don't list a name for the work. You do appear to be correct about the design elements, so I've re-added that to the article. There's definitely a grey area about whether to revert or add [citation needed]; I happened to revert because I'm not a fan of adding [citation needed] for claims where I don't think there's a citation to be found. Wikipedia requires that claims be verifiable, so Untitled (which is supported by that second link) is the best we have for now.


 * Unfortunately, I don't have any particular knowledge or interest in public art generally; my interest in Arts on the Line is from the MBTA connection. I'm glad to help if you ever have any specific citation needs (I have newspapers.com access to the Globe archives) or questions, though. A few general comments on the list articles: There needs to be some criteria for inclusion on the list (like having a separate article); otherwise, the list could expand significantly with non-notable works. When listing dimensions, use convert to automatically show both imperial and metric. And be careful of copyright with images, as the US does not have freedom of panorama for artworks. Images of any post-1989 artwork are definitely copyrighted and cannot be hosted on Commons; some images of pre-1989 artwork can be depending on copyright notices. (I am happy to help with that!). Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I will leave it for now and come back to it if I find anything. Yes, the public scuplture visuals are a grim situation, and I appreciate that it is a challenge to find copyright appropriate material. I've had some interesting conversations since I started editing, there's a sad gap, for sure, between safely long-dead artists and a younger generation who is savvy enough to sacrifice copyright to get exposure for their work. Susumu Shingu--well, he didn't have an entry on the needs article page. If you are familiar with Porter Square--Shingu did the HUGE engineered kinetic piece with sails. He's... more than notable (even if Porter's Gift of the Wind is not necessarily my favorite piece, except for perhaps sentimentally as a home-town icon).


 * That's not a complaint, it's just to say--it's considerably less fun to put up a page for a brilliant artist like Shingu if you can't provide illustrations!


 * I do have one copyright question that perhaps you could clarify for me, because I have seen it done a fair amount, but... I know that "seeing it done on other pages" does not actually make it WP policy acceptable. I guess it's a two part question (and I will add that I have read through the copyright pages multiple times, but I still find myself confused.


 * First: if I were to personally go into a museum and take pictures on my own camera, would only the pictures of pre-1989 artwork be acceptable?
 * Second: what is the piece of legislation that created the 1989 date? Is it fixed or sliding?


 * Are you at all interested in dead Boston subway stations? I was just looking at a cool circa 1910ish (or earlier?) picture of the defunct Wood Island Park Train Station, which I believe used to be hooked up to the Blue Line. Cheers, and thank you for the feedback. Sicklemoon (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The Hirtle Chart should hopefully answer some of your questions. Some dates are sliding; some like 1989 are not. As shown there, when a work becomes public domain (and thus photos of it are acceptable on Commons) depends on the publication date and some other circumstances. The original Arts on the Line artworks, for example, were published without a copyright notice or subsequent registration (the MBTA didn't even put up plaques...) between 1978 and 1989, so images of them are allowed on Commons.


 * For photos that are not mere scans and involve creativity in the taking of the photograph (which includes basically any photos of sculptures), the photo also has a separate copyright from the artwork itself. You can see how I handled that on this file. So yes, while you can license you photo any way you wish, the original artwork must be in the public domain for Commons. (These are all US-specific; many other countries allow fully free photography of public art.)


 * I very much am! I would absolutely love to see that image if you have a link. I've seen a few images of the nearby Harbor View station - which still exists, albeit heavily modified - but never any of Wood Island. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hynes Convention Center station
Hello! Your submission of Hynes Convention Center station 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. Good hook and article, just need to add in the sources. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Aquarium station (MBTA)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Former railyard name
Hi there, firstly **thank you** for all your assistance under the wikicommons"Cat:Aerial photographs of Boston from the US National Archives series: "Airscapes" of American and Foreign Areas"" that was quick. Kudos!

Next reason for my note: Wondering if perhaps you've come across the following information. Do you know what would have been the name of the rail yard at the current day Boston Prudential Center before the 1950s? I've searched a few different articles and saw no mention (i.e. the Boston and Albany Railroad. I see that after Back Bay there was a forgotten 'Huntington Ave / Trinity Place' stations. Then, a ways- down the line in Allston was the Beacon Park Yards.

The following photo was the one which got me thinking: * if you notice, the Turnpike is all rail. :-! I've also heard about a "Mechanic's Hall" for a long time that may have been around there but no idea what that Rail Yard would have been called. CaribDigita (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! That's a great treasure trove of photos. I'll go back and categorize more photos (and do more detail crops) later; for now I just grabbed a few. I haven't ever heard a formal name for the yard; on Commons I just have it as Category:Boston and Albany Railroad yard, Boston. (I just made a crop of the yard from that image you linked, FYI.) I believe the building you're thinking of is Mechanics Hall (Boston, Massachusetts). Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Palo Alto station
Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Church Street Station
I'm not sure what the best title for this section is, but I wanted to thank you for fixing the links to Church Street station, as it's been named for South Coast Rail. I was going to update the links on each page referencing its previous name of North New Bedford (starting w/ the Adjacent Stations template), but noticed before I published the edit that Church Street was already a station in Florida, and I wasn't sure how to update those links properly at first. Thank you for your hard work! Pokemonred200 (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! I was actually about to move the article when I saw that you'd just done it. The adjacent stations modules can be tricky, so don't be afraid to ask me if you ever have questions. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What sources are you looking at?
Sources don't mostly cap Subway for the Tremont Street subway and Boylston Street subway. Didn't we have that conversation already some place? What sources are you looking at? Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Boylston_Street_subway is where the evidence was shown and discussed, and consensus concluded. Please refix what you reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean the RM where you blatantly canvassed to stack the vote, and passed off mentions of completely unrelated subjects as evidence? Or perhaps I'm confusing that with the RM where you claimed two one-off mentions and a '30s magazine article were the definite sources, but several books about the Green Line were irrelevant? Given that you do not participate in any uncontroversial editing (adding cited material, uploading images, etc) related to the Boston subway system, but have spent a great deal of effort on pushing through and enforcing moves opposed by those who do, I can only assume your motives here are personal. I will continue following the capitalization standards of the reliable sources actually cited in these articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by personal. It's just about WP, not about you or me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Silver Line (MBTA)
The article Silver Line (MBTA) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Silver Line (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 ZKang123 -- ZKang123 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Highland branch
A quick book search shows that you are wrong that "it is obvious from the sources that capitalization has been universal for the last 5 decades". Quite the contrary; 21st century books as well as books from when it existed often don't cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Hynes Convention Center station
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Medford Branch (Boston and Maine Railroad)
Hello! Your submission of Medford Branch (Boston and Maine Railroad) 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! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Salem station
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

An editor now being discussed at ANI
Please see WP:ANI. Your name is mentioned in the ANI as someone who has crossed paths with Andrew in the past. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Medford branch (Boston and Maine Railroad)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Milpitas Station
Hey there--thanks for input on the photo. I'll go ahead and try to snag another photo that's landscape instead of portrait to better fit as an infobox image.

(I actually have a few from an elevated vantage point that mayyyy work but I didn't like those since there were so many construction vehicles in the shot. I may just have to wait until opening day, oof.)

Stay safe and healthy! :)

>>Atsuke (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding - it's a great shot, infoboxes just need landscape orientation. I'm planning to be there on opening day myself, so between us we should have a nice selection to choose from. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS
Re: Green Line (MBTA). Pi, please review MOS:CAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You, too. Why do you guys keep putting back caps where our style is to avoid unnecessary caps? Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that you're fond of quoting that. Why do we capitalize them? Because they are' consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Do you honestly think that I'm unfamiliar with sources that I have used on a near-daily basis for years, and that you're vastly more familiar with them after a few web searches? Your constant refusal to assume good faith, and your constant treatment of anyone who disagrees with you as a petulant child (who of course knows far less than you), is beyond unprofessional. I am tired of having to spend enormous amounts of time and effort to deal with your unconstructive edits and your need to right great wrongs. Do not ever post on my talk page or ping me again unless you are explicitly required to. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Franklin Line one-way service at Hyde Park
Hi; I'd thought to inquire about service patterns for Hyde Park Station and what's considered too in detail. I understand that listing that service is usually nonstop between Ruggles and Readville stations in their respective infoboxes was pushing it, though I'd like to ask what makes it not a true one-way station for the Franklin line.

I initially had this service pattern pointed out in the station's infobox as the upcoming (Summer 2020) schedule does not list any trains stopping inbound toward South Station, a trait shared with The October 2019 schedule (which was the last schedule in effect pre-COVID), as well as a 2016 Franklin Line Schedule that I used to make sure that Franklin trains only stopping outbound to Forge Park is not a new behavior.

Additionally, Amtrak Palmetto service is noted as one way (toward Savannah) in the infoboxes for New Brunswick and Princeton Junction stations, and one way (toward New York Penn Station) on the page for New Carrollton station, which gave me the impression that services that are usually scheduled to be one way should be listed as such, even if other services using the station are through-running.

For now, I did remove Foxboro from the termini listed at Hyde Park, as the Franklin trains serving the station on the upcoming schedule (7717, 7721, 7723, and 729) all terminate at Forge Park. your input on the matter, since it helps improve my judgment on these kinds of things in the future. Thank you for your time and input. Pokemonred200 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looking through my timetable collection (let me know if you ever need one - I have PDFs of almost all MBTA CR timetables since about 2003), the Franklin Line hasn't stopped inbound at Hyde Park since 2015, so you're definitely correct there. When I say it's not a true one-way station, I mean that it's not on a one-way loop, or only served in a single direction by all service. I'm not sure whether it's really worth noting in the infobox templates, as those are navigation templates rather than displays of all service patterns, and infoboxes are for the most important information. It's probably better saved for a note in the text of the article.


 * As far as termini, I think it could be confusing to have only Forge Park listed as the destination from Hyde Park, when the surrounding stops (Ruggles and Readville) will both list the two terminals. My preference would be to list both - treating the templates as navigating between the service as a whole, not individual service patterns - but I'm not wed to that it you have a good argument for the reverse. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any delays in responding to this in particular, but I see where you're coming from on one-way service as well as the termini. The article does note most Franklin line trains use the westbound track even when heading eastbound; this sentence could likely be modified to note that Franklin trains do not stop at Hyde Park when travelling eastbound to South Station as well.


 * As far as termini, how does a note in the infobox sound...? As in this example with Botanical Garden station, Metro-North station pages between Harlem-125th street and Woodlawn stations (barring Fordnam) note that New Haven Line trains never stop at the stations despite using the same platform tracks. I'm not entirely certain if the same system fits is in this case, though, as Foxboro service is represented as a part of the Franklin Line for regular service (though most trips run as extended Fairmount Line trains) and Foxboro event service generally runs nonstop between Back Bay and Dedham Corp Center. Regardless, I'd like to pick your brain on the idea, since it remains to be seen how things will operate once the Foxboro pilot ends in October. Pokemonred200 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That sentence in the article is uncited, and I don't have any source handy to actually substantiate it. I really don't see a need to indicate anything about the service pattern - particularly such a changeable service as a pilot service - except for the limited service note. We're an encyclopedia, not a timetable, and that's getting into the realm of truly trivial. As I mentioned above, these templates are primarily for navigating between articles; trying to use them to show intricacies of service patterns makes that less functional. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Silver Line (MBTA)
—valereee (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ipswich Street line
Hello! Your submission of Ipswich Street line 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of West Concord station
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article West Concord station 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Two questions
Re this:

1) What exactly does the infobox length have to do with it? It doesn't stick down into that section.

2) My understanding was that hardcoding the link was preferable as it kept the link from breaking if/when the category got moved on Commons. Where was this change announced? Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On my laptop screen, which I would estimate is fairly typical for those reading Wikipedia in desktop mode, it does stick down ("Services" header in the infobox is about level with the External links header). So while it might not stick down that far on some narrower screens - and that's probably the case for you - I'd estimate that for the the majority of readers the inline version will be better on that article. If there's any doubt about how it'll display I just use the inline version; it's never a problem to have it.


 * It's just the opposite - hardcoding the link means it will break if the Commons category is moved. If it's not hardcoded, then the template pulls from Wikidata, which is automatically updated when a page or category is moved. That's been the case for a few years now, since interwiki links were migrated to Wikidata. Hardcoding should only be used these days for rare edge cases: when there's a need to alter the displayed text, or when there's not a 1:1 correspondence between the enwiki article and the Commons category. Looking through the documentation history, it looks like this was changed in early 2019; I agree that it wasn't well communicated that the hardcoded link is no longer necessary. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured Wikidata now has something to do with that. I actually have a pretty wide desktop screen ... however, I tend to keep my browser window around 1024x768 ... that was what worked in the old days when that was how big your monitor was and to me that line length is just fine. Perhaps one day we can make things like this sensitive to that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Columbus multiple statue AfD
Hi! Do you think you can withdraw this and resubmit them individually? It is going to be extremely confusing discussing four (or is it five?) statues all at once. New London is notable, I found good sourcing. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I bundled them because they were identical two-sentence articles by a user notorious for creating one-line stubs of questionably notable artworks, and I could not find any substantial coverage of any. While I applaud your work finding sourcing, I believe that you have found routine coverage rather than substantial discussion indicating actual notability. If even local history books have nothing more than a sentence or two, how are any of these articles ever to be more than a permastub? I'm not inclined to unbundle them unless there is clear evidence that these articles are going to be substantially different from one another. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I would not describe myself as "a user notorious for creating one-line stubs of questionably notable artworks". I write about public art and sculpture a lot, and I've promoted quite a few public sculpture entries to Good article status, and a featured article, too! I'd like to think I have a pretty good sense about what types of public artworks are notable, and I would say the vast majority of pages I create are kept after being nominated for deletion. In the future, I invite you to please share your concerns on article talk pages before jumping straight to AfD. I agree, these should not have been bundled because now we have to drop what we're doing to rescue multiple articles. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Notorious" was overly judgmental, and I have struck it. I will try to notify you in the future before nominating articles for deletion. However, I ask that you refrain from creating stubs like these with only a single source, and that you add coordinates when creating an article. I would appreciate if you added coordinates to the numerous articles in Category:Boston articles missing geocoordinate data that you have created. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have !voted at something between 600 and 800 art-related AfDs. The way you have formatted this is terrible. Lumping them together is not the way to go, as you can't have a serious discussion of five different works. For example the New Haven statue is clearly really, really notable. The others have different levels of notability, but I think almost all of them make the cut. I found 11 sources for New Haven, and there are clearly more out there. It's been around since 1892; it's common sense that it is notable by now. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles were almost word-for-word identical at the time I nominated them, which is why I believed WP:BUNDLE was applicable. How is it "terrible" to format a deletion discussion following the instructions there? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * it's a disastrous way to do it, since it makes the discussion of individual articles very difficult. It's also plain from the above that you saw a bunch of stubs by an editor you are not a fan of, and nominated them all at once without doing WP:BEFORE. I found tons of coverage. Anwyay, I've made my point. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to propose changes to the AfD instructions (which I was attempting to follow) so that others don't make the same mistake? I've been grumbled at before for nominating similar articles separately, which is why I bundled these and why I am confused by your tone here. We clearly disagree on what constitutes substantive coverage, but that does not mean I failed to do WP:BEFORE, nor that my nomination had anything to do with any personal feelings about Another Believer. (While I fully admit I am annoyed by their creation of substandard stubs, it takes a hell of a lot more for me to actually dislike someone. If disliked them enough to deliberately target their articles, I probably wouldn't use their photo in the infobox of an article I'm trying to get to GA.) I fairly rarely nominate articles for AfD - I came across these because I regularly empty out the category of CT articles needing coordinates - so if you have any advice, I'm all ears. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominating five items means !voters need to either format their replies individually, as I did, or in one !vote, both of which are very confusing to follow. I don't think the AfD instructions need to be changed. In this case the articles, article titles, subject and the statues looked very similar. But, in reality they all have different histories that make them incompatible for Multiple AFD nomination. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ipswich Street line
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Kenmore Station
Hi, you reverted my changes to this article and I'm not entirely sure I understand the rationale. As you'll note if you view the diff: I believe, with the exception of my splitting of the infinitive in to eventually be converted all of my changes were non-controversial and so was surprised to see the reversion. I'm interested in reaching consensus on the above before making any further changes to avoid edit warring. Itsfini (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the history section I added the year, 1923, to a sentence in which it was otherwise unclear which year (from 1923 onwards) 'October 10' was referring to.
 * In the history section it read ...while the Beacon Street line was to use the a short turn loop rather than continuing into the Boylston Street subway - I removed the the, which I believe is objectively grammatically incorrect.
 * In the renovation section I added a the in Work included construction of the... In doing so I added an article as a determiner in the form of 'the'. Whilst in spoken English the lack of 'the' here is common, I believe the rule with written English is clear; an article should be present prior to the noun.
 * I believe I was mistaken with the hyphenation on 'B-branch', with the existing 'B branch' enjoying more popular usage.
 * I appreciate you coming to discuss. I could definitely have made my edit summary more clear. My thoughts:
 * 1923 is already given earlier in the sentence, and your addition lacked the requisite comma.
 * You're correct; I've now fixed my error.
 * I don't think it's any more clear with the additional 'the', but I don't have a strong opinion.
 * Correct - "B Branch" is the official and most widely used name.
 * My objection was to the use of "into", rather than your infinitive splitting. "Into" implies that the line itself was turned into the rolling stock. I've added a word there to clarify that the line was to be converted to use the rolling stock.
 * As a side note, tq is recommended when you're quoting things on a talk page (creating text that looks like this) rather than bold. Bold text is generally reserved for emphasis. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Coords on Columbus statues
Question: what do the coordinate you're adding to the removed statues refer to? We might need a "former location" paramter for the infobox for these to be right. It's sort of an interesting question, as historically the information is relevant, but it's inaccurate in terms of the present as the statues have been removed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm using the former locations for now - during the current period of publicity about their removals, having that location is probably better than nothing. (People may wish to use Street View to see what they formerly looked like, and so on.) We can adjust or remove the coords later once final disposition is determined. I do agree that a former location parameter would be useful - on initial look at the template, I think that a switch to change "location" to "former location" would suffice. Not sure if Wikidata has the ability to mark coords as former. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having a 'former location' field in Template:Infobox artwork and others. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I proposed such an attribute here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

New template for Former MA Military
I've asked at Template talk:MAMilitary if I can create a new template for the former Massachusetts military facilities that you removed from MAMilitary. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 08:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Subway caps again
Pi, in this revert you assert that subway is capped in Huntington Avenue subway, both in contemporary docs and modern books. I'm not seeing that. See older and modern books. But maybe I don't have the docs you're referring to; are they accessible? Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)