User talk:Pi.1415926535

Welcome to my user talk page! If I left you a message, please respond on your talk page, and I'll be sure to reply there. Otherwise, start a new section on the bottom of the page and I'll reply as soon as I can!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendleton Hill

You nominated this entry for deletion. It was expanded and improved but you made no further comment. It was redirected as you suggested without any of its content being merged. Do you think this has been a good outcome? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits after the nomination did not change the underlying issue - that there is not significant coverage of the place, either as a geographic feature or a community, in reliable sources. The other contributor to the AfD, who commented after those edits, agreed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other Broad Street station

See User:Mackensen/Newark Broad Street station (Central Railroad of New Jersey). I think it's about ready for article space. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Nice work! I added a Sanborn map cite and one of my photos. Looks ready for mainspace to me - hopefully the coords will work properly when it's linked to Wikidata. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've moved it. And yes, I always make sure the Wikidata item is linked up (especially in this case given the name changes). I think I've updated all references to "Lafayette Street Terminal"; still haven't found any uses of that. I'm wondering if it was a straight-up Wikipediaism to avoid the admittedly awkward situation of two stations with the same name. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering that as well - the CNJ seemed to only use "Newark" and/or "Broad Street". Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak Susquehanna River Bridge

Hey, great edits to Amtrak Susquehanna River Bridge. I'm curious about the choice to remove certain things from the citations, like archive-url and access-date tags. Are these extraneous details deemed not worthy for a GA article? I'm fairly unfamiliar with the process, and generally stay closer to updating stubs and adding cites. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Engineerchange, thanks for reaching out. These are both persnickety opinions of mine and not part of the GA criteria. For access dates, I am of the opinion they should only be used for sources that are liable to change – such as news sites or government web sites that may be updated over time – where the date the site was accessed matters to the reader. For sources that are not likely to ever change such as PDF documents, or scans of print materials where the original will never change, I find the access date to be extraneous if not outright misleading. Same goes for archived sources - once a human has checked the archived version, only the archive date is relevant, since the archived version will not have changed since then.

For archive urls, I am of the opinion they're only necessary if the source is dead, or liable to go dead, or if it's useful to preserve it at a point in time. For anything that's going to be live and stable long enough for it to be archived on archive.org (or already has been), I prefer to let the bot archive it if and when it goes dead. That reduces the amount of text in the citations. Some editors disagree with that, so I don't usually remove archive urls that are already in an article, but I do revert mass addition of archives to live sources. In this article, the only sources that I removed existing archive urls from were the two (dead) Baer citations that I updated to a live link. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. All good points here. Generally agree with all of them. Maybe I'm still suspicious that an archive may not be available down the road if I don't do it manually today? I truly don't understand the workflow of these archive bots. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Engineerchange: If you're worried about that, you can run the archive bot on the page and then revert it, or archive the article at web.archive.org (logged in) with outlinks enabled. Either of those will ensure that archives are available should they be needed down the road. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Crystal Springs Dam

Hey Pi.1415926535! First, thanks for the detailed response and feedback that you've given to me on Crystal Springs Dam. It's a lot clearer to me that there are some glaring issues that need to get fixed. I'll get to it as soon as I can. As for the Hetch Hetchy book, that would be great! My email is [redacted].

I have one question, though, and apologies in advance if it's a stupid one. You bring up that there are only four sources listed at the end of the article. I see that there are four sources, and that they have a bullet note next to them, but directly underneath there is a long list of sources, in smaller text, that link up to the inline citations. What's the difference between those two forms of citing?

The four references that are in bullet points were not done by me- those were done in 2009 by another editor. As such, I'm not entirely sure how I'm supposed to format references on an article. Could you perhaps point me to a sample article with good citation formatting or a guide that explains the process?

Thanks again for your help, and I hope you have a wonderful holiday season.

Cheers, 3602kiva (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3602kiva: I ended up sending you three chapters via a Dropbox link. Not all of that is directly about Crystal Springs, but I imagine it'll be useful background. Here's the citation information: {{cite book |title=Hetch Hetchy and its Dam Railroad |first=Ted |last=Wurm |publisher=Trans-Anglo Books |year=1990 |isbn=0-87046-093-5 |page=}}

All references should be inline - that is, they are directly next to the material they support in the text. That makes it clear to readers which source is supporting that material. Conversely, it's not clear what material the four bullet-point references at the end support. They should either be moved inline next to their corresponding material, or removed if no longer needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Transit Garages

Can you not be nominating NJ Transit articles up for deletion? It is not up for it and New Jersey Transit Kearny Point Garage has enough sources for it. Toyota683 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

Hope you enjoyed participating in this weekend's event. :) -- Rosiestep (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: I very much did! Thanks so much for coming out to SF to host it! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]