User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 2

Northern Branch

Fine. There's no need for 3 articles (including the Conrail). I think all three should be 1 article. Fix the damn template, I am an idiot in that regard.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lake Hopatcong station sandbox

For your amusement, if you'd like to help me here: User:Mitchazenia/Lake Hopatcong (NJT station) - I've uploaded images from the prior to 1911 station and some of my own photos from Jan 2. Would love help.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Guess I'd make an admission

This might surprise you, as I saw your post on the Railroad.NET Anderson Street forum (seen here). If you can put each part of the puzzle, Roadgeek Adam on the forums = me, if you noticed why Anderson Street popped up on there :|. May as well point this in your direction, because it seems you haven't noticed. Chuckles are allowed. :) Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

small mbox

• moved to Talk:New Jersey Devils#small mbox

Now using 2 more of Yanosey's books

I've got two more of Robert Yanosey's books for NJ Transit predecessors, using the three I have, I can cover: the Northeast Corridor, the Pascack Valley Line, most of the Montclair-Boonton, most of the Morristown Line, the Gladstone Branch (except for Stirling & Mine Brook), the Main Line, the Bergen County Line (partially), the old Newark Branch (which NJ Transit owns), the old DL&W Boonton Line (which includes the current Kingsland, Delawanna and Lyndhurst stations) and that's about it. Slowly, I'll progress, but its worth the effort so far.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Northeast Corridor Line

Uh, I partially disagree on one statement here, there are certain places where Pennsy and Penn Central history is rather important, as in the following: Monmouth Junction (which still stands), Deans, Adams, Stelton, Menlo Park, Iselin, Colonia, South Elizabeth, South Street Newark and Manhattan Transfer, all of which were on the line. We can't cherry pick from 1983, that's really pushing it as history for the aforementioned stations is necessary.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well still,  we need history representation, if we got it to FA someday,  it would be totally necessary. These are rather important things and cherry-picking the 83 cut-off is not the best way to do.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR Report

Hello, Oknazevad!  You might have a 3RR case, but it won't be quickly resolved as it is currently filed.  Do you need help filing a report on this page? Doc9871 (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

do not make personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did with the edit summary you left with this edit. Although you were correct that the IP user should not use the talk page as a forum, the incivility in your edit summary is never acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, calling someone a "moron" in an edit summary is a really bad idea.  You might want to take a "breather", and read up on policy, Oknazevad... Doc9871 (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing something, anything, to handle that persistent moron IP editor.
Prari (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

XFL "major league status"

...Well Time.com [1] and The Washington Post [2] certainly noted it as such. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: United National Gridiron League

Is there any sources that the UNGL has officially shut down?  Because unless there are, we should take it in stride?  I understand the point of Be bold, but I think it also says "be not too bold," so until we get consensus, I say we should reverse the redirects. Tom Danson (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt the league is dead; in fact, I saw a press release from it less than a week ago.  So until we hear sources, I say remove the redirects (or at least ask for user consensus) Tom Danson (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Grand Union

Someone put back the minutæ of Grand Union store locations.  You still think it should be removed?  I can move the list to my blog and put a link to it, if that would be more appropriate. FotoPhest (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are these mirror sites that copy what is here, so I just moved the list to my blog because I also use the Creative Commons licence. FotoPhest (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It happened again! FotoPhest (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that might need a lock on it.  I give up! FotoPhest (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yamanote Line removal from List of Metro systems

I've reverted this, can you justify it on the talk page please? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So as not to get into an edit war over this see this. There is now a consensus to add it as it meets the criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the interpretation that that discussion established a consensus to add the Yamamote Line. In fact, I read that mention as an argument against adding the Berlin S-Bahn.

More importantly, I believe it's inclusion created a cross-Wikipedia conflict with the commuter rail article and the Yamanote Line article itself. As those articles have described the line as commuter rail for some time, by consensus, the recent and fairly unilateral inclusion of it on the list of metro systems is the inappropriate change. oknazevad (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a very strange interpretation given that that was the main argument made... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Although I would prefer we exclude them all out from this list."-Kildor. I don't see how that isn't an arguement against inclusion.oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My fingers hurt

Well, it took an entire day, but I overhauled the whole article. How much more work do you think it needs to be brought up to A-class? ~ Butros (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion

I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Metrolink

Hi! I saw http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metrolink_%28Southern_California%29&diff=350661671&oldid=350660782

The headquarters is always important to any organization, whether it is a for profit company, a school district, or a public transit agency. I can understand if other offices are not mentioned in the lead, but the exact location of the headquarters must be in the lead always. Also the picture of the headquarters needs to be in the article somewhere. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• BTW I started a separate section about the HQ since I found info about Metrolink's leasing at the building. The picture accompanies the HQ section. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with its importance to the article. Metrolink's service would be the same regardless of which building served as its base, even if it was a non-descript office park. More tellingly, the article just went through a good article review, and while it didn't pass, the review made no mention of the need to identify the HQ. Frankly, it is basically trivia.oknazevad (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources oftentimes cover where the headquarter is with significant coverage, so in many cases it is not at all trivia. So far I only found some leasing information regarding where Metrolink is right now. However with the transit agency in my area, METRO, I found various Houston Chronicle articles detailing the agency's move to a company-owned facility from a leased space: METRO (Houston)#Headquarters

And to the taxpayer it does matter where the HQ is; METRO said that by moving into its own headquarters it would save taxpayers money

Because it is currently a good article, I will for now not restore the leasing information. I will see if I can find additional information on the headquarters, and if I find highly detailed articles written about how or why METROlink settled in its current location, I will restore the information

However I still want an image of the headquarters to be presented somewhere in the article.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Metro North

Hello, not sure where you're from but Metro North is far more important to Connecticut than Nichols Farms Historic District but not quite as important as a top article such as the Merritt Parkway. Ergo the "High" rating, as it is one of the main commuting routes in the state. Please feel free to review our criteria assessment scale if you like at [[3]]. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Forgot about the "Top" importance! I was more concerned with the "Low" rating on the NYS project, as that was underdoing it!oknazevad (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I of course agree that the NY rating would be lower than CT as the number of commuters NY sends out to CT is far less than what CT sends into NYC! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, Metro-North is more than just the New Haven Line. The Hudson Line and Harlem Line are entirely within New York State, and combined carry more than the New Haven Line. If this were the New Haven Line article then I'd agree fully, but to consider the importance of the while Metro-North article in terms of Connecticut commuting patterns is a mistake (and that's not even considering the West-of-Hudson service on the Port Jervis Line or Pascack Valley Line, which idle really an extension of New Jersey Transit.) So while I would definately agree with a "High" rating for the New Haven Line article, it's more borderline for the Metro-North article as a whole. oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why the New Haven Line is a Top article while the New Canaan Branch, Danbury Branch, and Waterbury Branch are Highs. The regional stations (Stamford (Metro-North station), Bridgeport (Metro-North station), and Union_Station_(New_Haven)) are Mids (as they have yards and are Amtrak stops) while the local stations (i.e. Westport (Metro-North station) ) are Lows. Since without Metro-North (and the 20% funding they put into the New Haven Line) the New Haven Line would halt in Greenwich, I think that makes Metro-North a High. Without the rail link, on any given day 110,000+ commuters would end up on I95(!).  Markvs88 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

List of metro systems: Guangzhou

If you check the source you've added (which is the same as the one above) it says there are 80 stations - the 88 figure probably comes from including interchanges and it keeps getting changed without the source getting changed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if the consensus at the GZMTR article is to count the interchange stations as two separate stations for counting purposes, then the figure at the list should respect that consensus and use the same count. That's why it keeps getting changed; readers see the conflicting numbers and change the figure at the list article. I believe they are correct to do so. 

First and foremost a list article is a navigational aid to articles about the individual entries, and any additional information appearing on the list article should correspond to the information at the individual article, as the individual article is te appropriate place to establish the consensus for these figures. So, in the case of GZMTR, the list article should use the same count of 88 stations as the GZMTR article, in order to match the consensus there. oknazevad (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, so then a source needs to be found backing up the 88 figure. I just object to the reversion of sourced data with unsourced data per WP:V. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not a case of sourced vs. unsourced so much as a case of interpretation of the source. If the 88 station figure is used by the article, we should keep it at the list. oknazevad (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no interpretation required, the source states: "The Guangzhou Metro system consists of 5 lines and 80 stations.", all this means is that the Guangzhou metro article breeches WP:V too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the GZMTR article's talk page is the place to bring it up.oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

I think you may be misreading wp:overlink, when you say it does not apply to leads (and use that as a reason to re-link New York City). Rather than revert, I thought I would drop by and say hi and ask you to perhaps take another look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it didn't apply to leads, but to infoboxes (where you had delinked New York City). My understanding is that infoboxes, as well as each row of a table (sortable or not) should be able to stand on its own and not be dependant on anywhere else in the article for wikilinks to other articles. (And vice versa.) That is the reason I re-linked New York City. Not that there isn't some egregious overlinking in the NYC Subway article, which includes some termslinked twice in the same paragraph. Those I would fix if I had the time. oknazevad (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected -- I had intended to say infoboxes.  Following up on your statement that " Infobox links are not WP:OVERLINK."  What is the basis for that statement?  I've never heard anyone assert it as a position, and can't see it in the relevant guidances. The relevant guidance does somewhat clearly indicate that words such as New York City should not be linked.  I see no exception for infoboxes, nor any that makes sense to me when considering the rationale for the rule.  

I am also of the understanding (as has been discussed on policy pages) that the infobox stands on its own. That means that if the phrase "asdg" is linked in the text, you may also link in it in the infobox.  But it is not a basis for linking in the infobox words that should clearly not be linked in the text, whether they be the word "the" or the geographical location "New York City."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, see I vehemently disagree that New York City should not be linked in the main text. While it is pretty obvious to anyone with any intelligence that the New York City Subway is in New York City, we cannot assume that the reader knows anything about New York City. We must keep those reader in mind in our editing.  

WP:OVERLINK exists to guide against linking irrelevant terms (because they're distracting in their irrelevance) and linking the same term an excessive number of times (because they're visually distracting). That is the essence of the guideline. New York City is hardly an irrelevant link for the New York City Subway article. Even if all other links were removed, I would abolutely insist that New York City be linked, along with rapid transit, as those are not only the most relevant terms, they are clearly the fundamentally defining characteristics of the system. That is to say, the one semtece version if he article would read: "The New York City Subway is a rapid transit system that serves New York City." All else beyond that is elaboration. oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The guidance says:  "What generally should not be linked ... Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including ... the names of major geographic ... locations".  Where is our disconnect?  Do you think that most readers of the English Wikipedia do not understand what "New York City" is?  Do you think that New York City is not a "major geographic location"?  The rule seems somewhat clear to me, and application of it to delinking of New York City rather uncontrovertible, to be honest.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article ← That's our disconnect. As I fully explained in my last edit (which you must have ignored), New York City is of supreme relevance to an article on the New York City Subway. Period. It is a fundamental, defining characteristic of the system, namely what city it serves. It is actually the second-to-last thing I would delink in the article. But I already explained that. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK; I see your viewpoint, but am not quite convinced.  But of course I may be wrong.  I'll post this at the guidance, w/a diff leading here, to see if we can get consensus.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oknavezad, can you point to the styleguide that restricts the ambit of styleguides from infoboxes? I've seen this fiction put about before by infobox / link-everything people, and it doesn't cut the mustard. Tony (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find an explicit guideline that call for always linking in infoboxes, but that doesn't make the argument often put forth that it is standard practice "fiction". Not all conventions on Wikipedia are explicitly codified or recorded, and the widespread practice of heavy linking in infoboxes appears to be a major example of "consensus by silence". So, in short Tony, no I can't point to the specific style guide, but that doesn't make me wrong. And, frankly, I'm not on trial in a court of law here, so I don't particularly appreciate the tone of your question, which I find overly legalistic and confrontational. oknazevad (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in defense of Tony, you made a rather stark assertion, as your basis for reverting me.  Writing at the outset:  "Infobox links are not WP:OVERLINK."  I asked you somewhat gently above:  "What is the basis for that statement? I've never heard anyone assert it as a position, and can't see it in the relevant guidances."  You didn't respond to me.  Now, it seems that what you are saying is the standard -- presumably based on what you've seen during your 5,000 edits -- is not in fact reflected anywhere but in what you've seen.  Which is at odds with what Tony and I have seen in our combined 90,000 edits.  So, I'm just wondering if perhaps there is a possibility that your presumption is not the case; and whether to the extent that it is the case, it should be deprecated.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS

Hi, if someone objects to a change to a policy or guideline, the usual thing to do is discuss on talk, not try to force the change in over objections. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Brit who has used so-called Oxford spelling all her life, and it's only since joining WP that I keep seeing people tell me that it's contentious. :) It isn't. It's a bog standard variant. If you want to add the other variant, that's fine by me, but please don't exclude this one. I take your point about carrying the point, but when the point is wrong as it stands (as in "this is British English"), it's important to present the other view. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Municipal government articles

Two notes about your recent edit summaries for these articles.

Firstly the coding for hidden comments is still there, but it is in the "wikimarkup" menu below the edit summary box. It looks like this:

Secondly, as for the content, to categorically say that "mayor"s in council-manager systems are never elected is incorrect. Montclair, NJ for example has a mayor who is elected to that office specifically. (In practice, he serves as an at-large council member and presiding officer.) That's almost as common as a rotating mayorality. As no two states have the exact same laws regarding local government, to state absolute categories is problematic. oknazevad (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I found the old format for hidden comments by going back to old edits... perhaps a heads up to the designers of the new format would provoke them to list this among the tools. I'll look for the mark-up box. It is so very useful at times. 

I have rewritten the paragraph in council-manager government to include exceptions and used the community you pointed out as a link to demonstrate that, thanks, distinct exceptions are good and I did not have any to identify. ----83d40m (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

MoS edit

Hi, but why bring "spelling" into it just here? And a newbie won't realise that this refers to engvar. Do you not see the potential for confusion? I really don't see the need for this whole point. Tony (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Way I see it, it's less about spelling as a restatement of the consistency priciple, which never hurts to restate. oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchs

WP:COMMON governs article titles, and overides POV squeamishness, and quite rightly, or WP would look even more of a dog's dinner than it does. That is why we have an "other uses" template, to avoid nearly every search ending at a disam page.  The GO patriarch is clearly primary, and the brief talk page discussion showed a lack of understanding of policy. But I will not press the point if the disam page is not messed about with. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as long as there's no attempt to have the undisambiguated "Patriarch of Jerusalem" point to any one of the claimants of the title, there should be no issues. The fact that they are ultimately rival claimants of the title, even if (some more willingly than others) qualify that claim with a disambiguator, means we can not choose sides in the claims. And I strongly disagree that WP:CN categorically trumps WP:NPOV. When they conflict, the matter should be settled by discussion, and, in my opinion, on the side of caution. Having no one claimant to the title of "Patriarch of Jerusalem" (or the essentially equivalent title "Bishop of Jerusalem") is the most cautious, and therefore correct, route. oknazevad (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense - read the policies. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Towaco photo

Hey, me again. I was at the Montclair-Boonton stretch from Mountain Lakes to Little Falls today. Any opposal for me tossing your night-time photo on Towaco's article for a daytime one?Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly, though there's nothing stopping us from having both in the article (and I wouldn't mind), though I would put the daylight in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The amount of room currently comes to mind, but let's see. Anyway, the good thing is now every station from Mount Olive to Newark Broad Street on the M&E division (Morristown & Gladstone) and the Montclar-Boonton, the entire Raritan Valley all have photography for each station except for Hackettstown.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 12:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

1994 FIFA World Cup

Consensus is not to have "Final standings" tables on these articles, as it contravenes policy. --John (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to that (those) discussion(s). It seems to me to be hardly a case of OR when the tiebreakers are known and these final standings should be verifiable to reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look. The verification for a FIFA tournament would have to be FIFA; unless they have changed their policy recently, they only publish 1st 2nd and 3rd places, which is why we do too. Also, it's worth pointing out that the onus is on the person wishing to add something to find a source for it. I therefore thank you for removing the material I challenged. --John (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Oanabay's stuff...

...has been brought up elsewhere. Seeing your involved with this, you might want to be informed.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 03:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Seven Minutes in Heaven (play)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot.  I have performed a search with the contents of Seven Minutes in Heaven (play), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Seven minutes in heaven.  It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists.  If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Its an intentional page split per WP:BOLDoknazevad (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Oknazevad. Please note that when you split content, you need to include a direct wikilink to the source article in the edit summary. See WP:CWW for more information. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Thanks for letting me know. oknazevad (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Monty-Boonton articles

If you've noticed I've gone around getting expansions on many as possible. Obviously I only seem to be able to work on them when I feel like it. However, for now, three Montclair Branch articles got the info they needed (Bay Street, Watsessing Avenue and Roseville Avenue). The fact that the Boonton Line has more work is :|. I have Montclair Heights and Upper Montclair in sandboxes along with Lake Hopatcong, so slowly these are being redone. Can you fix Benson Street, Rowe Street and Arlington so it says Boonton Line not Montclair-Boonton and Ampere and Roseville so it says Montclair Branch? This is not my department. :(. Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it ain't mine either. i only ever get successful results on s-line templates after much hacking around. The biggest problem with them is finding where the settings are and changing them without screwing up the settings for open stations. Which is what I'm afraid would happen here. AFAIK, the line name is set at the master page for a given template and changing it there would change it for the open stations. So, sadly, I cant really help, as I don't know enough. I'd check with Tinlinkin or Acps110 if they're around, they know far more than I do.oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Its ok. Its also my attention to give North Newark, North Rahway, Harrison, Grove Street and Harmon Cove articles. Harmon Cove I have the citations for (all except for its opening date) along with a sandbox. I am also trying to find the last timetables that give Harmon Cove service so I could see what it got. From what I've read on Railroad.net, PVL Train #1617 served Harmon Cove - a rarity in itself. Also, I want to propose removing the NRHP infobox portion from Infobox station. Not only does it extend the infobox longer than needed, its really not worth it.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 22:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Leave the NHRP stuff. The listing of a station on the NHRP makes it notable above and beyond the normal station, and the historical listing wikiproject people would be pissed. As they are actually a good benefit, it should stay.oknazevad (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Woodhaven and Woodhaven Junction

The thing is, Woodhaven (LIRR station) and Woodhaven Junction (LIRR station) really aren't the same stations at all. You also had Trotting Course Lane (LIRR station) between both Woodhaven and Woodhaven Junction. Check here and here. The use of Beaver Street (LIRR station) as a sub-chapter for Jamaica (LIRR station) wouldn't apply in this case. ----DanTD (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page on the article? Most of it was written by User:NE2, and he was never the kind to make things like this up. I did check the history of Trotting Courser Lane itself, but I forgot where else I saw the name "Trotting Course Lane Station" being used, although it doesn't seem like it even existed in most of the 20th Century. Maybe we should ask where he got the info. In the meantime, can you take a closer look at this map? ----DanTD (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just sent NE2 the message. In the meantime, according to the full list of stations as he wrote it, Woodhaven is "east of 87th Street," Trotting Course Lane is at 94th Street, and Woodhaven Junction is "West of 100th Street." I just checked Google Maps of the three stations, and Woodhaven Boulevard completley replaces the 94th Street intersection. I suspected that it may've been torn down when Woodhaven was widened during the 1930's, but that would only be possible if the station existed that long into the 20th Century. ----DanTD (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE - Here's the source, but even NE2 has some doubts about it. I can see Trotting Course Lane being an old AART stop. I've been known to write to the webmaster of the LIRR History site from time to time, manybe I can ask him about it. ----DanTD (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

City Terminal Zone template map

Hi Oknazevad. Could you explain on Talk:City Terminal Zone why you removed the map? I'm sure you must have a reason; I'm just not aware of the issues. Thanks very much. --Bsherr (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw your reply on my talk page.  Could you instead reply on the article talk page? Talk:City Terminal Zone.  That's where I'll post my reply. --Bsherr (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 14.  Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We've been having a productive discussion, for which I'm very glad.  But I noticed that you deleted my comment.  Please don't do that. It's a contravention of WP:TPOC. --Bsherr (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was accidental.oknazevad (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I redrew the template (again) such that there are only 3 lines out of Jamaica.  What do you think? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It does look better. I don't really think we need a line map on the article, and the current image I think covers it, but either one is now okay by me.oknazevad (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that you removed the image, I don't mind the right-align.  Although do you think it should be collapsed? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I think it works either way. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed to remove that ghastly whitespace in the article. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's collapse it then. There's not to much in my browser, but that my just be me.oknazevad (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange page move

AeroTrain (Washington Dulles Interntional Airport)

What's an Interntional? Typo? :-) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. i'm actully on my friend's computer and he has a broken "A" key. I'll fix it.oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

TTC Template

Could you explain what was wrong with my recent edits to the template? Some important edits I made in it were bypassing redirects/fixing links and organizing the lists in alphabetical order. I believe errors, if any, could have been manually fixed instead of full revert. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I'll revert my revert, but I am fixing the Sheppard Mark I link.oknazevad (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Seven Minutes in Heaven (play)

I have nominated Seven Minutes in Heaven (play), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Minutes in Heaven (play). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Whenaxis (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarity of quote punctuation

Having reverted my edit you might be interested in this discussion: Quote punctuation :-) --Empro2 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Divine Service

Hi, now that Divine Service is a disambig, could you help point these links to the correct article per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 12:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

City/Area Dilemma  

I was mainly comparing the two to the NFL, as they use that classification. --Alf42069ps (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Trains in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

SEPTA Regional Rail

Please cease from reverting the edits made to the SEPTA Regional Rail article. There are several users who have restored the edits and additions made. The BLET information is based on several meetings held with members of the group, and there are a great many insiders who have confirmed their comments. Feel free to dispute whatever you would like, but until a source that overrides the current one listed can be found (please note SEPTA has not disputed the BLET comments), these edits will remain. Any further edits you make will marked as vandalism.

Mr. Mitchell's comments remain untouched, as you are correct in that he did edit the comments after they were added. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.71.224.157.27 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:V. These edits cannot be verified by Wikipedia editors from reliable sources (as the supposed webpage is closed access). oknazevad (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's do this one at a time. - PA Rail: this should not be deleted, as it h as been sourced, and clearly states in the article that the proposals came up in 1995, unless you want to rewrite history and make like it never happened. - BLET - the interviews with BLET were held over the last two months shortly after the transit strike ended. This has been sourced.71.224.157.27 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My issue here has always been the characterization that is a current proposal. The source is far too old to support that. A more recent reliable source is needed. 

WP:RS clearly states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Speaking with BLET is a third-party source. 

But conducting your own interview via their website is original research, and not verifiable; it's not the same as using a quote from them in a newspaper. 

The failure to adhere to those policies are the issue, not the actual content. SEPTA's earned their lousy reputation, and there should be plenty of good sources to cover that, but it's Wikipedia's reputation that I care about. 

That's always been at the heart of any content discussion I've ever had, which, by the way, is exactly what the other examples were. They were settled amicably elsewhere. 

Frankly, the whole bit, now removed, is a little close to a personal attack, but I'll assume good faith and ask for some chill in understanding that I just want the article to stick to policy and not be used as a soapbox. oknazevad (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Useful link

Why did you delete my useful link on WP:MOS? Us441(talk)(contribs) 00:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The MoS, as one of the key reference pages here, shouldn't link to a user's sandbox. I also don't think a sample page illustrating the point is needed, as its a pretty straightforward statement. But if there is consensus to add one, it should be hosted elsewhere, such as a MoS subpage. oknazevad (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Arena Football League

1. The Barnstormers' current incarnation DID play as the Iowa Barnstormers before joining the new AFL.  However, the Blaze never played under that name outside the AFL.
2. Technically, the new Force and VooDoo aren't the same as their old franchises either.  However, these teams do have history in the Arena Football League, which is why we have the AFL under their "Previous league".

Hope this clears things up, Tom Danson (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood your position, I just disagreed with it. The "former league" column was, in my interpretation, showing which league the team last played in, not the team's entire history. It was a relic of the separate article for the relaunched league, which has rightly been merged. As such, it's not really needed anymore, therefore I have removed it.oknazevad (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

SEPTA Regional Rail: timeline

Why did you undo the edits made to the timeline? These dates are based on fact. After reading up on the article's history, it appears that quite a few people have asked you to stop reverting lewgit edits. Stop hiding behind "I disagree" and "my interpretation." This article has been edting by transit experts and those with publicaton in hand. By your own admittance, you are a railfan, Instead of removing information so that the article becomes SEPTA Regional Rail According to Oknazevad's interpretation, why not actually do research, find the source articles and add them instead of just removing? This will add to both wikipedia's credibitlity as well as your own, for now you have none.65.89.98.17 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

unverifiable sources have no credibility. That's the issue. Period. That's our standard of inclusion. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The timeline was sourced in many places, and it appears that the unverifiable info has been removed or verified.Oanabay04 (talk)

That was incidental damage. My concern is the "Capital funds" subsection of the "Criticism" section, for the reasons I've detailed numerous times: an Internet discussion forum is rarely a reliable source, and in this particular case, the BLET website, as a closed membership, cannot be verified. Which I tried to do. I only removed that section; The rest is well enough supported, if a little dated.oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For PVL purposes

I got my hands on the Wilson E. Jones book and see much to add :). May include a PVL article rewrite.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Let me know if you need any help.oknazevad (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I eventually have Teterboro-Williams Avenue and New Bridge Landing up for rewrite. I also got 7 of the 13 volume of The Next Station Will Be... today. I did update North Hackensack/NBL yesterday to some degree on demolition and stuff. I have more to add. (Williams Avenue I have a boatload of construction info, if  you can believe it). I believe also Hillsdale Manor may be joining New Milford and Harmon Cove on priority new article list. Got some interesting info on Hillsdale Manor.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's absolutely fantastic. I grew up in Hillsdale, and have passed the former Hillsdale Manor station site more times than i could possible count. And yes, I know exactly where it was, and can get a picture if we want one in the article. Yea!!!oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Parkview Drive crossing, yep. Its pretty interesting when you read the history. We need one though, lead photo will be a Hillsdale Manor photo when it stood. Also User:Mitchazenia/Pascack Valley Line.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 16:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe there's a good shot somewhere on the Hillsdale Free Public Library website. I've seen it before, but it was so long ago I don't know if i still have a copy around.oknazevad (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Hi Dave,

I noticed that you reverted my edits on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles template. I have since initiated a discussion on its talk page here to explain why I believe some alterations to the navbox would improve it. Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated links proposal

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS.  Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish.  I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamburg S-Bahn

I'm rather certain that the Hamburg S-Bahn has no tracks in common with f.i. regional trains or DB-Intercity train. They run parallel at Haubtbahnhof (And think You may been confused by the fact that the Hamburg S-Bahn is powered both from above, and by a third track, dependig of line.)  But On Hamburg "Metronetz-maps" (also called "USA-Bahn"!(at least in the late 90's - the A-Bahn is a pure surburban pro-longing of both U- and S-lines, I do not know more about them, and they are not included by me, prehaps the A-Bahn has disappered today) German sites clearly indicates that the S-Bahn of Berlin and Hamburg is of "full metro standard" - unlike f.i. S-Bahn in Magdeburg. I followed a german site when adding Hamburg.

Zooming up this map makes it rather clear that no other train runs on the S-tracks. And they do certenly do not do so at Hauptbahnhof. (Thow 4 parallell tracks exists specially in and out of the centralstation/Haubtbahnhof (nouns is always spelled with a first versal i german)

http://geofox.hvv.de/jsf/mapsLGV.seam

and at the german wiki-page

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Bahn_Hamburg#Ausschreibung_des_S-Bahn-Betriebs

I cannot find any support for that other trains then S-trains runs on the S-tracks, thow there are two differend powersupplies. In the whole system S-trains stops at 4 "Fernbanhöfen" (Long-distance-stations) and 11 regional stations, but nothing what so ever that suggests that regional trains and/or long distance trains use the same tracks as the S-Bahn.

Sorry if I'm wrighting this under Your personal discussion - but as a non-member I'm not familiar how to do in cases like this.

If You decide that I'm wrong, please just overrid my override. 

Best of reguards  John, Sweden (south) 300-350 km from Hamburg wich I've visited over 10 times. I've also red german i public school, and specially written german is understandable in most cases. (fast discussion is more difficult)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.42.159 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the mention

I thank you for the mention: Hey, glad to see someone else working on the L&O stuff. There was a task force of editors under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television banner at some point, but it seems to be inactive. Just wanted to run a thought regarding the by you. Seems to me there's two ways to link the game articles together and to connect them to the rest of the L&O articles. 

One is to place a single link in the main franchise navbox pointing at the list in the franchise article, with a dedicated navbox for the games linking each of those articles together. 

The second is to link all four games in the franchise navbox and place that on all the game articles, deleting the games-specific navbox as redundant. 

I prefer the first, as the games, while certainly worthy of mention, are a relatively minor part of the franchise, and placing all the links directly into the franchise navbox begins to look like clutter and even seems a bit like undue weight. 

Just wanted your thoughts. oknazevad (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added this message to my actual account.  We can discuss there.  I'm sorry if I got into a little bit of an edit war over your additions.  I did not mean to.   

Part of me thinks that the video games are such a minor part that they should be excluded altogether.  I know that seems wrong; but the bulk of the franchise is dedicated soley to television, and a television film. Can you at least see where I'm coming from?

Again,  I am sorry.  I'm releatively new to the L&O fandom.  When I was younger, my mother would switch channels when the flagship or a spin-off would come on.  I just started getting into the original, and then it was canceled not long after - I'm still angry about that.  But, SVU is quite good - Ice-T is just wonderful on that program.  And let's not forget LA.  I see a quality and long-running series with this, and have not missed an episode.

Again, to the continue the discussion, let's go to my actual talk page.  I hope to begin a proper correspondence. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and I thought of a possibility to include the games, as well as other material -  I've seen various other television templates that have video games or another material that are included, but not directly in the navbox in sections.  If you look at the templates for The Office or House, video games, soundtracks, and other minor material are included, but seperately.  I don't know if I'm explaining this well enough, but take a look at those.  What I want is for the video games and other material to be included, but sections of the template to be for the television aspect of it, because that is what the majority of the franchise is.  Would that work, and would you be okay with that?  Let me know. Thanks. - Cartoon Boy (talk) - 24:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

SEPTA Regional Rail edits

Hello - do you work or did you previously work for SEPTA? Nearly all of you edits to the above article have been in an effort to protect the agency. Most, if not all, of your edits, are based on your opinion or how you THINK it should read. After reading your talk page, it appears you have injected your "wisdom" into quite a few article that you clearly did not have a right to get involved in, so it clear your track record is hardly impressive (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, "I also don't think a sample page illustrating the point is needed,"  TTC Template,  Northern Branch) Here's my favorite: "I disagree with the interpretation that that discussion established a consensus to add the Yamamote Line" Thank you, I am glad you disagree. Move on...this is not wikipedia according to Oknazevad. The fact you are not from this area and have little idea of what we are dealing with politically with SEPTA proves that you simply edit the article blindly. Please cease immediately.71.224.157.27 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, where do I start with this load of crap? How bout I work backwards.

Firstly, read WP:OWN. Your edits aren't worth anymore than mine. And I have as much a right to edit any article I find myself interested in, thank you very much. If I disagree with other editors, or if others disagree with me, that's what the WP:BRD cycle is for. Expressing opinions are a fundamental part of that. Coming to my talk page and accusing me of bad faith is not.

Secondly, read WP:NPA. Cause your really damn close to violating it.

Thirdly, logging out so you look like more than one editor is blatant sockpuppetry, Oanabay04. You fail the duck test on that one.

Fourthly, I wouldn't need to revert your edits if they were anything more than uncited, verifiable, obviously non-neutral attempts to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to slam SEPTA. Take your axe elsewhere to grind it; Wikipedia isn't the place for your rants.

Frankly, your the one who doesn't understand this place and its five pillars at all, based on what I've seen in you edits across many different articles. I think you need to re-evaluate what you are doing at this site. If it's not to build an accurate, verifiable, neutral encyclopedia, then your not here to help. Period.oknazevad (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Unless you are a transit expert who has done the research on these issues, please stop editing this section and trying to hide behind Wikipedia rules. Nearly none of them apply here or elsewhere. We've seen your ridiclous RR.net posts as well, touting yourself as a transit expert. Unless you want to mislead nearly every reader, please cease immediately. "where do I start with this load of crap?" is easy grounds to be locked from editing SEPTA Regional Rail.
  • 1) "Expressing opinions are a fundamental part of that." - fact-based wikipedia is for opinions? really? I must have missed that one.
  • 2) WP:NPA. "Cause your really damn close to violating it." Your talk page alone has several violations that I am surprised no one has reported you on.
  • 3) sockpuppetry, "You fail the duck test on that one." - your accusatory tone wreaks of an editor who has has his share of real wikipedia editors (like Oanabay) who have hammered your so-called edits which are actually just power trips hiding behind wikipedia rules. Not sure how many times I have to beat the dead horse here. There are several regular editors of this page if you have not noticed. We all hail from this area, and all deal and speak with SEPTA on a regular basis. We may smell like ducks, but it could be because we are gather similar facts. Just a thought. If you notice, you are the only one editing nearly every additional to this page.

Also, please take notice that in the secon wikipedia pillar, it specifically says "Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". Case closed. 65.89.98.17 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be a transit expert.

Engaging in sockpuppetry to explain away sock puppetry is laughable.

Any criticism of the actual edits themselves belong on the article's talk page, where a discussion (of more than one objecting editor) has already begun. oknazevad (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new direction for "Casting and characters" section

Hey, there.  I've taken notice to the way the other Law & Order show articles discuss casting, and I think that is the same way we should be going with Law & Order: LA.  I think the casting process for every role is important to mention; like in the other articles. Look at how the others dicuss casting, to see what I mean: Law & Order, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Law & Order: Criminal Intent) Thanks. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

LRC

Some time ago you posted on the LRC (train) talk page. Have your concerns been addressed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They were many moons ago. Completely forgot about it and moved on.oknazevad (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding to edit requests

When you respond to requests to edit semi protected articles, after the issue is complete (like at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), please  untransclude the request template. That is, change the {{Edit semiprotected}} to read {{Tld|Edit semiprotected}}.  This will remove the request from the [[Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests]], thus letting other editors know that no more action needs to be taken.  Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks. Didn't know that, but now I know. (And knowing is half the battle!)oknazevad (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Gary Carter

I'm not involved in this, but do you have a source to back up your footnote? ccwaters (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

One from USA Today here. And there's already a few at the Gary Carter article about the debate. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to add the usa today article to that footnote. It specifically supports your claim that he wanted a mets hat. I noticed the one ny times article at Gary Carter that mentioned debate, but it didn't attribute any firm stance to Carter himself. ccwaters (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So it is done. oknazevad (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Succession boxes

I realized that, the thing is, I've been working on the progression of the Erie westward, not inbound towards Pavonia Terminal, if you notice all lines are doing that where I've added. Its going to require a major change at this point if you want to reverse it. I've been working on North on the right, South on the left.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 00:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the work to reverse one of them is worth it. The fact that there are conflicts with the existing succession boxes, which are on the only still active stations, is an issue. I actually think that going so mile marker 0 is on the left makes sense, so it may be better to flip the PVL succession boxes. Bit I think we should take that to WP:NYCPT for further thoughts. After all, that'd affect all NJT lines. oknazevad (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your rv on Mission: Impossible (disambiguation)

"no "see also"s on disambig page per the guidelines"

What guidelines, where?  The guidelines I've found contradict this.... -- Smjg (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it was a misinterpretation on my part. That said, disambig pages are meant to list and clarify things that have substantially the same title. "Impossible Mission" is not the same as "Mission: Impossible", so I don't think there's likely to be confusion between the two.

As an addendum, the description of Impossible Mission as "unrelated" is not entirely correct. From what I've read, the original version of the game was intended to be a Mission: Impossible game, but the license was denied. So the developers just flipped the words in the title. This is actually mentioned somewhere around here. 

That said, I can understand its inclusion, and have no strenuous objection to its inclusion.oknazevad (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion notice: smallcaps and LORD

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)