Talk:Camp Chase Railway

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camp Chase Industrial Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821163430/http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/CR/CR%20Maps/CR%20System%20Maps/CR%20System%20Map%201978.pdf to http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/CR/CR%20Maps/CR%20System%20Maps/CR%20System%20Map%201978.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Gallery Images

User:Trainsandotherthings: In reverting my gallery edits, you said "We. Do. Not. Need. Four. Pictures. Of. The. Exact. Same. Train. Please read WP:GALLERY." I agree with you that we don't need 4 picture of the same train. However, the images are of different engines. The exception to this is two images show the front and back of one engine (#7076) along with an earlier image of that engine. I've taken out the 2017 image of 7076, if that works for you. In my opinion the gallery meets Wikipedia's guidelines. This railroad is also one of the few in the United States with a bike trail within the active railroad rights-of-way. It's also my intention in the future to add a photo or two to show how close the railroad and the bike trail are. Anyway, are you willing to discuss this with me and try to reach a consensus?--SouthernNights (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You still have two images of 7076 that were taken at the exact same time, adding nothing to the article other than further clutter. If you read the policy page I linked, it says:

In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text (see MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons.

Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

It is pretty obvious to me that multiple images of the same locomotive at the same location and same time add nothing to the article. What exactly about two photos of the same locomotive "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images"? Furthermore, if you're expanding the article there should be no need for a gallery as images can be presented inline, as the quoted policy clearly states is what should be done. Galleries should be used in limited circumstances only, and they are not an excuse to add a bunch of photos, which is de facto how this gallery is being used. I get that you want to add your photos you took, but that doesn't excuse violating image use policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

First off, I'm good with the three images in the galley. And if I'm able to develop the article so it's long enough to move the images so they're presented adjacent to text, then I will do so. That's always my preference with images. So I believe we have a consensus. But that said, I strongly suggest you ease back on the attacks and assumptions. All the images are not mine -- I didn't take the old photos. Second, the article is currently too short to have images presented adjacent to text, which is why I created the galley. Finally, you keep quoting Wikipedia guidelines but your edits broke one of the biggest, the three-revert rule. If you'd merely discussed this with me from the start we could have quickly reached a consensus without all this drama.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You do realize that, as the one who first introduced the disputed edit, you would by definition be equally culpable for edit warring? I find it disconcerting how you act innocent while claiming I have done wrong. In fact, this all would have been avoided had you followed WP:BRD, which you decided not to do. While you opened a talk page discussion, you readded the disputed edit 10 minutes later, before I had a chance to comment. If the article is short, then can't you just wait until it has been expanded to add additional photos? You'll notice I have made no objections to your expansions of the prose and sourcing, which I welcome. This article was on my watchlist because I had noticed it was very poor quality and I wanted to eventually expand and improve it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but you're wrong about reverts. Per the three-revert rule, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In short, first introducing an edit to an article doesn't count toward the three-revert rule. Anyway, perhaps it'd be better if we stop going at each other b/c it's obvious we won't agree on these issues. What we can agree on is a desire to improve this article. Are you okay with the information and citations I've added to the article? Any thoughts on additional information I can research for the article? While we may be butting heads over interpretations of policy, I do recognize that you're far more knowledgeable about train articles than I am. So I would appreciate any feedback on ways to keep improving this article. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, my first concern is the name: it seems to be called the Camp Chase Railway now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I can rename it Camp Chase Railway and leave a redirect under the old title, if you're ok with that. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and renamed the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)