Talk:Glenwood station (Metro-North)

Trains: Stations / in New York City Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

Formatting changes[edit]

Since Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) blindly reverted all my changes with the message "better before" I'm going to outline why I made these changes, and why I think they're best for the article:

Removed the hard-coded 300 from the image size in the infobox. This is a no-op; the infobox itself sets that size and the infobox is designed to use that size. 300px also conforms (for the moment) to the Manual of Style for main image size. If those defaults ever change it's better that there not be a hard-coded value.
Removed extra whitespace between the infobox and the opening lede. This is standard and tightens up the spacing. I'm surprised it was controversial.
Moved the image of the power station within the power station section of the article. It makes sense to me that it be within the section that describes it. As the various sections expand with more content this will scale better.
Removed the hard-coded image size of 300px. This is per the MOS as well and it's a common courtesy. The default thumbnail size is 220px, but users may configure that according to their preference. We shouldn't force this without a good reason, and none is apparent here.
Removed the "Notes" sub-heading from the References section. I can't fathom why it was there in the first place. It's redundant and unnecessary.
Removed the bullet point for the commons category. I admit I don't have much a reason for this save that every other article I've seen does it this way. Also, less cleanup if and when the article becomes long enough that we don't have to render it in-line anymore. Further, not having the bullet-point makes it clear that this link is special and different from other external links (which is why it's also at the head of the list).
Removed the "spacing" comment. Again, no idea why that's even there.

I welcome discussion about these changes. Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BRD - you made a Bol edit, I reverted, then we discuss. You do not restore your edits first, soi I've reverted to the status quo ante. I'll respond to your comment above when I have more time this evening. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm familiar with that policy. You've been here long enough that you ought to know it's rude to use rollback that way. I mean, rollback to reintroduce whitespace? I'll await your comment this evening and I hope you'll consider showing more courtesy than you have so far. Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right. I'm reverting my edit, taking this page off my watchlist, and walking away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]