User Talk: 4300streetcar

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

United Airlines fleet ↗

Hello there. Regarding this article ↗, for an image change you need a good reason. We can't just change an image just because, "The white on the previous image was gray (it's likely either underexposed or has some heavy editing to correct some lighting issues), and there's very noticeable chromatic aberration." There was nothing wrong with the old image and the new image, it was just unjustifiable to change that image. Hacked (Talk|Contribs ↗) 03:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for considering my opinion :). Hacked (Talk|Contribs ↗) 04:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:As noted in my recent reversion - I will concede the old image has a better angle, and reverted to it. However, the old image's colors are visibly off (compare the white on it versus any of the other images in the gallery - it looks weirdly gray), and it looks out of place in the gallery compared to the other photos, which are generally better lit and show the EvoBlue livery's white as proper white. The color fringing is very noticeable as well when you open up the full-sized image, especially around the cockpit windows. Unfortunately images of United A321neo's are very few, and it has the best angle of the images on the Commons right now. I will make it a goal to replace that image once I can get a better side shot of a United A321neo, or if anyone else uploads a better quality image on the Commons. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::No, I do see where you are going with this grey and white color but that reason isn't enough with changing the image. Hacked (Talk|Contribs ↗) 04:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::If there is a higher quality image without those issues, and from an equally good angle, is that not a perfectly valid reason to change the image? There's some other images quality issues in that gallery (e.g. the 737-900ER image has some very heavy heat haze and is noticeably blurrier than the other images as a result, and is also ripe for a higher quality replacement). I'm digging around the Commons right now for an EvoBlue 737-900ER image with a good angle without those issues. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I just don't see why improvements to images in articles (either in framing/angle, or in technical quality) aren't as valid a reason as any to edit articles, as much as improvements to prose are (and articles are routinely edited to improve the quality of the prose, be it in clarity or in accuracy, even in very minor ways). 4300streetcar (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::MOS:IMAGEQUALITY explicitly says to "Use the best quality images available.". MOS:IMAGES contains nothing about image quality improvements not being a valid reason to change images. 4300streetcar (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::MOS:IMAGEREL ↗ states, "Images should ''look like'' what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." MOS:IMAGEQUALITY ↗ says, "Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter". The image you added might have a slightly higher quality but the angle of the shot was not the best, unlike the original ones. Just because an image has a higher quality, it doesn't mean we have to change the image. Hacked (Talk|Contribs ↗) 14:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Regarding Charles/MGH infobox image changes

Hello there. Regarding my recent attempts to swap out the infobox image at Charles/MGH station on the MBTA Red Line, I noticed that you swapped out my most recent image in favor of one that I previously shot two days before. Seeing your comment on that reversion, I wanted to let you know I usually do position the camera with a large fencepost on the side in order to make it easier for myself to straighten out the image once it is taken.

I was not completely satisfied with how my camera was positioned for the first two images, because the train was not up close enough in the first take and off center in the second take. That was why for the third image, I wanted get a more centered shot of the train without sacrificing the view of the station's interior wall on the opposite platform. Below are all three of my shots at this station from this week.

{{multiple image
| align = center
| image1 = Charles MGH Northbound MBTA Red Line Platform, December 2024.jpg
| width1 = 200
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Charles MGH Northbound MBTA Red Line Platform (1), December 2024.jpg
| width2 = 200
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
| image3 = Charles MGH Northbound MBTA Red Line Platform (2), December 2024.jpg
| width3 = 200
| alt3 =
| caption3 =
}}

I'm curious to know what positioning Pi thinks is best. Ignore the appearance of each image - I can change that according this admin's suggestions. IliketrainsR211T (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:Hey - thanks for reaching out.

:Photographic composition is generally subjective, and there are no hard and fast rules for composition, though there's some common preferences and recommendations that usually make shots more pleasing (e.g. making shots level, visual balance, avoiding distractions, etc.). That being said, in my personal opinion I don't think there's much if any reason to center the train here, as you have a lot of converging lines (the tracks, the platform edge, etc.) that naturally draw the eye towards the train and the rest of the station, even if it's off-center. The issue with the rightmost shot compositionally is that the pole and the horn are visually distracting - it clutters the foreground, and pulls your your eyes there and away from the neat converging lines that draw the eyes towards the train and the station. IMO the fences and the platform in your rightmost shot also don't feel like they have as much balance in terms of visual weight. You could try cropping the horn and pole out, but the resulting crop gives a lot of visual weight to the northbound platform (which is brighter than the surrounding areas), and which probably isn't what you necessarily want for a photo illustrating the station.

:The rightmost shot is the best lit though (in terms of lighting it's right > left > center).

:If you want to learn more about photographic composition there are lots of materials and guides out there, though I don't have any recommendations specifically. Looking at other peoples' image galleries (perhaps at an art museum or similar) and seeing what makes their images work could be helpful though. Be aware though that Wikipedia images above all are meant to be a good illustration of article subjects (which often isn't the top goal with a lot of artistic images you see at art galleries and such), and so priorities may be somewhat different.

:Hope this is at least somewhat helpful. Thanks for taking these images, and keep up the good work. 4300streetcar (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree with 4300 that there's no reason to center the train, and about the visual distractions in the rightmost image. Your preferred version of the lighting in the center image is poor, with a dull blue cast and low contrast. I believe my edits have better contrast and more realistic colors. In any case, it's frustrating that you keep taking nearly-identical images from the same spot and swapping them out every few weeks. That doesn't really improve the article or Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

MBTA construction photos

Hi 4300, hope you're doing well! Due to other obligations, I wasn't able to get as many MBTA construction photos as I intended this month during my trip. No pressure, but should you have the opportunity to get any, these were the active/recently completed construction I was aiming for:

New platform construction at North Wilmington

Mini-high platform construction at Franklin, Walpole, and Wellesley Square

Recently completed mini-highs at Beverly

Quincy Garage construction (there's a good view from the Quincy Adams garage)

Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:Hey! Thanks for the heads up - hope you're doing well as well. I'm unfortunately not frequently in those areas (unlike, say, Park Street haha), but I'll make a note to try to get some pics if I'm nearby or have the time.
:Best, 4300streetcar (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:I managed to get some pics of the Quincy Garage construction:
:300px ↗
:300px ↗
:There's a chance I get Wellesley Square in the near future (as it's not too out of the way for me), but the others are somewhat unlikely as I'm rarely in those spots.
:Best, 4300streetcar (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks so much! Quite a bit of progress since I was there in September. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Got a few night pics of the Wellesley Square station mini-highs, since I was passing through the area:
::300px ↗
::300px ↗
::300px ↗
::300px ↗
:4300streetcar (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::Awesome, thanks so much! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I managed to get some daylight pics today:
:::300px ↗
:::300px ↗
:::300px ↗
:::300px ↗
:::300px ↗
:::Also thanks for catching some of the errors on some of the earlier uploaded files! (mistaking Courthouse for WTC, various categorization omissions) 4300streetcar (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:::(also thanks for catching me mistakenly saying titling those as Wellesley Farms - not sure what was going through my head) 4300streetcar (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I occasionally scroll through your uploads - it's always exciting to see all your photographs. And believe me when I say I've made that exact sort of error before. I've definitely uploaded a few dozen photos only to realize that I had the date off by a day on all of them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::No worries at all - I do likewise follow a few other users including yourself. And thanks for the kind words! 4300streetcar (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:Got Walpole - I made a new Category:Renovations to Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts) and they're under there. 4300streetcar (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Locations and months

Hello. Regarding your recent edits on some aircraft types. You are kind of being hypocritical when you were saying "location should be left out when it's not visible" when in posts I had up were indeed visible. And if you were a frequent editor you would know that all articles have months next to the years they were taken in. There are 12 months in a year and people will wonder what year it is in and some might not even know how to scroll down or where to scroll down after clicking on a picture. Every category on this site such as transportation, sports, public figures all have months next to pictures of them as there should so if you're going to say things about discussions like these on talk pages please show me exactly what others were saying or try and work with me to come up with a solution because I am simply just trying to be transparent with things and specific but not too specific like any normal editor would. Thanks Gymrat16 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:You can dispute the inclusion of month in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Captions_-_mentioning_airport_when_airport_or_surroundings_not_visible,_and_mentioning_month ↗. There seems to be agreement among the comments there that months is usually not relevant for aircraft (barring significant events, introductions into service, and so on), but you can dispute that in the comment thread there if you want to discuss it.
:You added location into the infobox picture https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_757&oldid=1276477045 ↗, which is against the sky and which shows nothing of Lisbon other than maybe the stray barbed wire in the corner. This is the exact sort of photo where there was agreement above not to mention the location since it's not depicted in the image ''at all'', unlike like the photos where I kept location, such as one where the control tower at LAX was visible.
:400px ↗
:Re: your recent reversion - I will discuss this further in the Boeing 757 talk page, but the text next to the picture discusses Continental installing winglets in 2009, which was why there's a picture of a Continental plane with mention of the blended winglets in the caption. You removed this image without explanation as to whyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_757&oldid=1276477045 ↗, hence me reverting it. There are plenty of pictures of defunct airlines and airlines that no longer operate the type in various aircraft articles, and Continental no longer existing is not a good reason to remove pictures of Continental Airlines on that reason.
:You also didn't provide any reason to switch the other 757-300 picture, and it's not obvious why you switched the picture or what issues you had with the original picture (whereas I provided justification as to why I think we should use the original picture), which I will also discuss in the Talk page soon. 4300streetcar (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:Also, changing images is almost never a minor edit ↗, and you should not be marking those as minor edits. 4300streetcar (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
::that pic you are showing above i can understand but in the others if buildings are in the background then they are not irrelevant like the las Vegas one was perfectly reasonable like the LA one and we should not be using defunct carriers especially if they are very similar to what is already being showed higher and lower in the articles and it kind of is because people unfamiliar with aviation and planes might get confused to what is what so having a continental plane in this day in age is NOT a bad reason it is actually pretty reasonable given that it has been 15 years now since that name being non existent. I understnad the "winglet" description but as I said there have been multiple post merger pics up and down and adding a long gone image with a similar scheme but a different name might confuse those who are unfamiliar with the subject. I understand and appreciate your passion and contributions but we need to think more constructively here. Gymrat16 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:::1.) I did not remove the Las Vegas location mention (see my edit diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_757&diff=prev&oldid=1276504946 ↗, where I left the reference to Las Vegas McCarran airport intact. I later removed the photo entirely and restored the old photo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_757&diff=prev&oldid=1276505196 ).
:::2.) You can discuss the issue on the Boeing 757 talk page topic ↗ that you tried to delete.(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_757&diff=prev&oldid=1276654596 ↗) I disagree, but we can talk about it there. 4300streetcar (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Why not here? Gymrat16 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
::::What difference would it make if it were here rather than there? Gymrat16 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::For content disputes I prefer to talk about it in the article's talk page (which is exactly what it's for), since other people can more easily weigh in. 4300streetcar (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Oh ok i suppose you're right Gymrat16 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CFexpress ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking to aircraft variants

Linking to variants is doing a disservice to the readers. For example what use to most readers is a link to de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter#DHC-6 Series 200 ↗ rather than de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter ↗ or Boeing 727#727-200 ↗ rather than Boeing 727 ↗? The fact that some other airlines do it does not make it correct. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia (Wikipedia:Purpose ↗) and not designed for the enthusiast. Almost all airline articles I see link directly to the main article and I have been trying to ensure that a link to the variant is included as well that way the general reader can see the information they require and the enthusiast can go directly to the section they want. Much better than removing relevant links to information. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#Aircraft variants ↗. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva ↗ 05:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't mind linking to the overall page rather than the variant, but the Flair Airlines article used a strange way to describe variants, and linked both the variant and the overall article (e.g. the 737-400 was described as a 400 ↗ series Boeing 737 ↗). I mostly object to the weird way of saying "400 series Boeing 737" rather than just "737-400" like every other airline article does, and am agnostic as to whether the link is to the specific variant or to the overall page. 4300streetcar (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Long-range plane shots

I've recently acquired a Canon R7 crop-frame and an RF 200-800 lens, which together give 1280mm effective zoom. I've been surprised with the quality I can get with that combination, and have been chasing shots of aircraft at about 4000ft approaching Dulles in clean configuration. This is necessarily hit-or-miss, since it has to be hand-held (bracing on something is only marginally helpful), and acquiring and tracking the plane is challenging. If I use bird-following mode in the autofocus it helps a lot, and I must depend on the IBIS and lens stabilization to avoid motion blur from jiggle. And of course, atmospheric distortion over the four miles or so slant range is a big issue. Bearing in mind that the rate of stinkers is quite high, I've gotten a few decent shots of large planes like A380s 777s and 350s with the flaps stowed. The Alaska 737 turned just over my house. '''Acroterion (talk)''' 13:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:Very nice! Funnily enough my first instances of planespotting were watching planes go over my back yard at 4000ft and trying to take photos of them with a dinky little point-and-shoot. With 1280mm of effective zoom you're getting much better results than I was at the time haha.
:Have you tried mounting it on a tripod using the lens foot, or are the angles too high? I recently tried mounting my 180-600 on a tripod and putting it into APS-C crop mode (to get 900mm effective) to do video and it worked quite well, though it was a very windy day so I was getting a lot of shake in the video regardless and the footage wasn't that usable. I could see it potentially helping a bit with the shake.
:Also how does the lens fare wide open? I notice you're pretty stopped-down for a lot of these.
:I have done a few shots of A380's in cruise with my 180-600mm , though the detail isn't quite there since I need to crop very heavily:
:thumb|center ↗
:I also wonder if it'll be better in the winter. I went planespotting a few times in this hotter weather now, and have been noticing my pictures aren't as contrasty as when I was taking them in cooler weather (I've had to add quite a bit of contrast in post, which wasn't necessary for the shots I took earlier in the year). Maybe winter is the planespotting season (much like how it's stargazing season due to the clearer air), and maybe summer is mostly for trying to get building facade shots of north-facing buildings. 4300streetcar (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

<gallery>
File:Air France Boeing 777-300ER F-GSQY MD1.jpg
File:Lufthansa Airbus A340-300 D-AIGD MD1.jpg
File:Lufthansa Airbus A380-800 D-AIMK MD1.jpg
File:Alaska Boeing 737-9 MAX N963AK IAD MD1.jpg
</gallery>

::I think winter would have more stable air, although when a front comes through it's plenty turbulent. The 200-800 is variable aperture, so it's at best f8 at 800mm. It's the price you pay for not being heavy and expensive, so you have to work within those limits. As for tripods, I'm relatively tall, and with the angle I'd probably need to sit in a chair - kind of a lot to lug outside and set up when you see the plane incoming on Flightradar 24. I've been getting better with leading a little and letting the plane fly into the frame. I have had to send the R7 in to Canon to help diagnose an issue with a lens, so I will work with the R5 and crop for a while, though its AF behaves differently. And thank you for reminding me, I have a list of places that I should be shooting for the northish illumination. '''Acroterion (talk)''' 16:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::Your A380 was up at contrail altitude, so you did pretty well considering. Now and then the weather brings the approach directly overhead at low altitude, which is interesting but hard to photograph, especially before tracking websites existed. The most unusual thing I've seen was a Russian IL-62 about 25 years ago. A couple of years ago there was a 767 that had gear problems after takeoff and flew back and forth overhead at low altitude with gear down to burn fuel (not all 767s have the fuel dump option), but it was 11 at night and I had to listen to ATC to figure out what was going on. '''Acroterion (talk)''' 17:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::BTW, I've redone the 717 image with a different denoising workflow and minimal sharpening to restore detail obscured by the noise reduction. What works for one livery or set of lighting conditions doesn't always work for all. I usually check the mid-belly and the lettering for trouble. If you see something that needs to be improved, please ask - I'm not touchy about that sort of thing. '''Acroterion (talk)''' 02:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh excellent - yeah the new one looks noticeably better (much fewer jaggies and other artifacts). And will do! 4300streetcar (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

South Station Bus Terminal

Since you've been there more recently than I have, could you read through South Station Bus Terminal#Design ↗ sometime to see if there's anything that doesn't make sense? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

:I took a read through and it makes sense. Nice work! 4300streetcar (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks so much! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

R46 Photo

Hi, I have since replied to the R46 talk page. Sorry for the late response; I’ve been too busy at work. Davidng913 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Airport destination lists sourcing RfC

Hi there,

I'm leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I've initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements ↗.

Cheers! Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 14:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for February 24

Hi there, while the discussion is taking place with the User:~2026-51992 ↗ because this User:~2026-51992 is doing edits without typing in the edit summary i have used edit warning templates.

{{Uw-vandalism3 ↗}} {{Uw-vandalism4 ↗}} ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 23:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

MAX vs. Max

Could you please add the results of your research to the talk page? Thanks! ~2026-85501-6 ↗ (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit-warring

In the future, please remember that reverting edits that are not ''obvious'' vandalism is not an exception to WP:3RR ↗; your reverting at Swoop (airline) ↗ (6RR) and Sunwing Airlines ↗ (4RR) are 3RR violations. You won't be blocked for this as there would be no preventative purpose this time, but please do not do this in the future - instead report the other user at WP:ANEW ↗. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

:Ok, understood. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Facts vs opinions

Saying months are “irrelevant” is an opinion, not a fact, especially when there is very little meaning behind it. There are thousands of other users here besides you and this is Wikipedia, not TikTok where things are going to be surface level. The month is relevant because it provides contextual information about when an image is taken. Images of all kinds have them. Even if the station itself does not change, the surrounding environment often does (seasonal conditions, weather, lighting, vegetation, maintenance state, etc.), which can affect how the image is interpreted by readers. This is why many similar articles include full dates or at least months in image captions—to give readers accurate temporal context rather than presenting the image as if it could represent any time. To summarize, Including the month provides additional context about when the image was taken, which can be useful for understanding seasonal conditions or the state of the station at that time. This level of detail is also commonly used in similar articles, helping maintain consistency for readers.~2026-17711-97 ↗ (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

:Wikipedia has policies such as the manual of style, which are generally to be followed. MOS:CAPSUCCINCT ↗ states that "Succinctness is using no superfluous or needless words", and generally excess detail should not be included in captions. This is a matter of policy to which there is consensus ↗. These are judgments of opinion that are nonetheless key to how Wikipedia operates.
:For the photos in question - there is no need to include month, and the reader can easily click on the image for further detail if they want to know the exact date the photo was taken. The Bowdoin photo is underground, where none of the parameters you mentioned are relevant. The Airport photo is indoors as well, and does not have any vegetation or other markers of season. Maintenance status from month to month is generally irrelevant unless notable enough to have been explicitly mentioned in the article text - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information ↗. In either case - there is generally no reason to include month in generic station photographs unless there is a particular reason to (e.g. the photo was taken shortly after notable renovations or other changes mentioned in the article itself). It makes the caption unnecessarily long (in violation of MOS:CAPSUCCINCT ↗), and is unnecessary detail most of the time. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Boeing vs BCA

You're right - thanks. It ''should'' be just "Boeing" in the vast majority of the article because that ''is'' what people call it, but this time I changed it in places where the full name is necessary. Sorry about that. TooManyFingers (''he/him'' ↗ · talk) 16:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

:No worries - thanks for recognizing! Yeah it's pretty much the same thing most of the time, but not in those cases. 4300streetcar (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Your reverting of my image on the A train ↗ and R211 ↗ articles respectively...

I hope you realize that the R211 A train image that I took at Broad Channel was during the PM Rush Hour following the aftermath of the winter storm at the time earlier this year. Only the train's front face is in poor quality. The rest of the image was perfectly fine. Your edit summaries regarding my image came off as a bit shady IMO. Thenostalgiaman (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:I just want to preface with saying that your contributions are welcome on Wikimedia Commons, where we collect a lot of free images of the New York City subway. We also all generally want to see our own images in prominent places in Wikipedia articles (I do so as well). I also don't mean to denigrate anyone's work.
:{{tq|Only the train's front face is in poor quality. The rest of the image was perfectly fine.}}
:There are Wikipedia policies about images ↗. One of them is MOS:IMAGEQUALITY ↗, which states that we should "{{tq|Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; video stills; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous, or at an awkward angle; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary.}}"
:You replaced a very sharp, well-lit, and high resolution image taken with a mirrorless camera with a fairly dark and low-contrast image at significantly lower resolution and crispness taken with a phone. Sometimes this can be justified depending on the article subject (e.g. if it shows the subject better). In the R211 article this was not justified - your image did not show the primary article subject (the R211-type car) anywhere near as well compared to the previous image, on top of the downgrade in image quality. I initially did not revert the A train change, as it shows the environment of the A route better than the original picture, which was a decent justification. However, that justification evaporated when I later realized there was a noticeably higher-quality image of an R179 A train at the same location lower down in the article that was brighter and crisper, so I reverted.
:{{tq|during the PM Rush Hour following the aftermath of the winter storm at the time earlier this year}}
:None of this is relevant for the infobox photo on either the R211 or A train articles. If this was an article about that specific winter storm, or if it was later in the article to accompany text about a winter storm, using your image would make sense, and could even justify replacing an otherwise higher quality image. That is not the case here - there's nothing special about a winter storm or PM rush hour for illustrating an article about the R211 or the A train that would justify the image quality downgrade. 4300streetcar (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:{{u|4300streetcar}}, stop being a smart ass with this unnecessary long, winded paragraph. My image was in perfect quality. The only difference is that the skies were getting gradually darker. But my image overall is in high quality.

::Your second paragraph is just you adding words to my mouth for no valid reason and once again, you sound very snarky. All I said was that I took the image during the PM Rush in the winter when the skies were getting gradually darker. This was in no way, shape or form a flex like how you’re making it seem. So cut it out now. But the image is in high quality overall. The only issue is the train’s front face due to the LED of the R211s’ route bullet and destination on the top of the train. Anyway, the only reason why I’m replying to you because you’re coming off a bit sassy and adding words to my mouth just to force in an unnecessary misconception to create a false narrative about nothing. Last but not least, you do not own the article or just Wikipedia in general. So stop it. Thank you. Thenostalgiaman (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::{{tq|stop being a smart ass with this unnecessary long, winded paragraph}}
::I will warn you that this is the exact kind of comment and tone that will get you blocked for incivility ↗, including the explicit personal attack ↗.
::{{tq|Your second paragraph is just you adding words to my mouth for no valid reason}}
::If you're talking about the third paragraph, I am describing the effects of your action replacing the image. I did not mention anything in that paragraph about what you said. The second paragraph was responding to what you said by quoting MOS:IMAGEQUALITY ↗.
::{{tq|But the image is in high quality overall.}}
::It's a notable downgrade in image quality over the previous image for the reasons I listed previously (resolution, sharpness, darkness, etc.) This is not to denigrate your work, but is reasonably objective comment about the image.
::{{tq|Anyway, the only reason why I’m replying to you because you’re coming off a bit sassy and adding words to my mouth just to force in an unnecessary misconception to create a false narrative about nothing.}}
::That's quite the accusation to me simply reverting your image changes and pointing out that the image changes you did were downgrades in image quality and not particularly justified.
::{{tq|Last but not least, you do not own the article or just Wikipedia in general.}}
::Neither do you, but I can point to Wikipedia policies like MOS:IMAGEQUALITY ↗ that was developed by consensus and is generally expected to be followed by editors.
::I encourage you to take a step back and cool off. You should not be taking things like the above personally, especially to the point where you are getting uncivil and making personal attacks on me. If you continue down this road you will very likely be blocked from Wikipedia. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|4300streetcar}}, you keep on repeating that my image is worse and a downgrade in quality compared to others. The so-called “darkness” is because of the time I took the image which was during sunset as you can clearly go back and see for yourself and I already explained that, but that doesn’t automatically make it a bad quality. The only bad quality is the way the train’s front face given that the LEDs on the R211s’ route bullets flicker on and off, but I was lucky to catch a perfect shot of it. The rest of the image is in quality, so it’s you who needs to watch your mouth and tone it down with the sassiness and creating false narratives like I’ve been saying. My image was in qood faith but you keep making it come off as bad faith. But I understand that you want to continuing being an idiot instead of listening to understand. I can even go and edit the photo myself to make it so-called “better” and “brighter” like the current R211 photo taken on a sunny day. Have a nice summer. Thenostalgiaman (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

endash (–) vs hyphen (-)

FYI: per the Wikipedia Manual of Style ↗, for ranges between numbers, dates, or times, that might otherwise be expressed with to or through, we use an en dash (–), which is not the same as a hyphen (-). To enter an en dash, click on them in the tool bar in the source editor, under the "special character" menu in visual editor or use the template by typing <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>endash ↗<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads up! 4300streetcar (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Tag bombing

Rather than tag bombing articles and reverting editors with 20+ years experience, let's focus on improving articles instead. Tag bombing doesn't do very much to make articles better. Now, if you were to find an article that was 90% unreferenced and you put in the effort to fix a third of them, but then couldn't fix the rest, I wouldn't complaint if you tagged that hypothetical article. If a section can be tagged, that's preferable. Specific tagging is more helpful than general tagging. Even better is to tag specific sentences. In the case of GE Genesis ↗ you said there are five statements tagged. Very good. Everyone can see that. There's no need to tag the article, which is on balance reasonable quality (C grade), and does not deserve a giant orange maintenance tag at the top. Jehochman Talk 15:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:{{tps}} I agree with 4300streetcar's edit here - the banner is appropriate. Significant portions of the article, including multiple paragraphs of technical details and much of the infobox, lack citations. Several other portions are cited only to unreliable / user-generated sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

: How about each person who comments here fixes one thing? I just chopped out a dubious sentence. Jehochman Talk 15:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::Please be careful with your changes - the citation needed tag that you removed was relevant to the entire paragraph, not just that sentence. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:This is an article I've made a significant number of edits to in the past year, including adding sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GE_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1314577256 ↗, copyediting for neutral tone and trimming unsourced content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GE_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1362782590 ↗, and noting technical limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GE_Genesis&diff=prev&oldid=1314566229 ↗, and does not merit an accusation of tag bombing. This article needs more work, and I have not tagged every uncited claim yet. The remaining <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tags are statements that are likely true but I have not found an RS for, or for which an RS may exist but is likely difficult to find. In general, detailed reliable sources for rail articles like this are difficult to find (for online content we're mostly limited to a few magazines such as Trains.com, WP:ABOUTSELF ↗ railroad-published content and interviews/presentations given by railroad staff, as well as offline sources such as books which require a deeper search). 4300streetcar (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

: WP:BITE ↗, WP:OWN ↗. See you later. I won't touch it again. Jehochman Talk