Talk:List of Caltrain stations

Comment

This list was merged back into the main Caltrain article. It should never have been split off in the first place, as Caltrain is a single line service, and therefore the main article is the proper location for this material. For comparison see South Shore Line (NICTD) and Altamont Commuter Express, which have their stations listed in the main article.The original spliter stated that his intention was to mirror List of BART stations, but that is a multiple-line system, and not really analogous to Caltrain.

Also, the entirety of the text in this list article was verbatim from the main article, while the main article suffered from not having this list.

Finally, as one can see at Talk:Caltrain, when the split was proposed, the propsed was advised against it, yet the split was done anyway. I read that as acting against consensus, so in essence, this is a revert to reflect that consensus. oknazevad (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You are the only person opposing this proposal and you only raised your objection today when I proposed over a year ago. I don't see how creating a list for stations is okay for a multiple-line system, but not okay for single-line system. So, I reverted your change.—Chris!_c/t 20:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I only objected now because I only noticed now.

I truly believe that the main Caltrain article is far poorer without a simple list of stations. As I said at the other talk page, when dealing with a single-line service, the article is as much about the physical rail line as it is about the service that runs upon it. No coverage of the physical line can be complete without stating which stations are upon it.

And simply put, a separate article is a waste of space. All text at this list article is almost entirely verbatim from the main article, and the list of stations, in large part because it is only one line, is too short to stand on its own. The split was never needed, at all.

Also, my desire to re-merge was stated at the appropriate Wikiproject talk page, where no objections were raised. That, being the most relevant Wikiproject, seemed to be a strong enough endorsement for me.oknazevad (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a highly disruptive way of stating your point, Oknazevad. There has never been any consensus that single-line systems should not have a stand-along station list, and your references to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has no root in consensus or guidelines, yet alone policy. There are several other places where single-line services have separate station lists. Not only that, but the list has passed through FLC, where there was no comments about the matter raised. Another issue is that the Caltrain article is at the verge of being too long, without the stations. Adding another screen or two of length makes the article too long by any standard, so the matter is rather how can we remove information into sub-articles; creating a stand-alone list for the stations is an excellent way of doing this. The way this merger has been proceeded, by making a comment on the rather inactive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains page "threatening" to move the article if no comments are made, and then essentially deleting a featured list 20 hours later, is unacceptable behavior. If you want to merge such content, mark both articles as such and start a discussion on the article, and then wait at least a week before action is taken. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, if you continue your disruptive behavior, I will have no choice but to report you.—Chris!_c/t 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my rashness, but I figured I was in line with WP:BOLD. That said, if, there is a sense that the Caltrain article is getting too long, I would strongly recommend against having the stations as separate from the main article. It just seems to me to be an entirely essential aspect of the article. I couldn't imagine the Hudson Line (Metro-North) or Pascack Valley Line articles without a stations list. It is a key characteristic of a passenger rail line. To me, Caltrain is at least partly analogous to those lines. In short, it's a bit of a weird situation, as the Caltrain article is both analogous to the Metro-North Railroad article, as the service provider, and to the Hudson Line, as a physical rail line.

I do ask, with sincerity, what other single line services have a separate list of stations?

Also, I wouldn't call Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains inactive. While the editors may be a relatively small group, compared to, say, WT:MOS, there is almost always a new post or two a day there. And it's not uncommon for entire discussions involving project-related pages to take place on project talk pages. I also object to calling my comments "threatening". I may have been rash, but I was never uncivil.oknazevad (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The main article is already 38,168 bytes without this list being merged to it. The rationale to split article should be based on its length, not based on whether the system is single-lined or multiple-lined.—Chris!_c/t 00:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not to split an article should be based on its length. What content to split should be based on the nature of the subject, the article's content and good editorial practice. In other words, we must take into account what the article covers, and its particular details. The stations list is, as I said above, one major detail that I wouldn't split from the article, in large part because the Caltrain article is as much about the physical rail line as it is about the service on it.oknazevad (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not like readers cannot access the same info when this is split from the main article. And on Wikipedia, the rationale to split article is based on length. See Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Article size—Chris!_c/t 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) My point, Chris, was not whether to split, but what to split. The main article is a difficult one to trim, in large part because it has to cover both aspects, the service and the physical line. I am glad you restored te older version of the station list there, as it covers exactly what I think needs to be in the main article, in a shorter fashion. Thank you. I will relent from any further edits here, but do suggest that the table should be rearranged to give the mileage as the default sort, as reading the stations in the line order is a more natural arrangement. Not that alphabetical is a poor choice, but it would work better for a bare list, not this detailed chart.oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I reorder the mileage per your suggestion.—Chris!_c/t 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would relocation of the San Francisco terminus affect only mileposts south of Lawrence as stated in footnote "b"? For example, a Southern Pacific timetable from 1968 lists Sunnyvale as being at MP 38.8. This matches the mileage given in the article. The S.P. timetable lists Santa Clara at 44.3, College Park at 45.7, and San Jose at 46.9. In the article, the mileage given for Santa Clara is 0.4 mi greater than the S.P. value; for College Park 0.6 mi greater; for San Jose 0.6 mi greater. There would have to have been some major changes in the route and/or station locations for the mileages in the article to be correct. If that is the case, footnote "b" should explain them.

Also, what is the source of the track mileages for everything south of San Jose? Do they differ from the S.P. mileages? Are they measured from 3rd and Townsend? Clearly 3rd and Townsend is the reference for this article because all track mileages from Sunnyvale north match the 1968 S.P. mileages, and the 4th and Townsend depot is listed at mile 0.2

The mileages given on the CalTrain web site also differ from the S.P. mileages south of Sunnyvale. I suspect CalTrain is the source of the discrepancy. I trust Southern Pacific more than I trust CalTrain. Also, if the idea is to match the Southern Pacific mileposts, CalTrain hasn't succeeded at this.