Wikipedia for Texas Eagle error?

[john h]

It says that heartland flyer is discontinued, this must be an error right?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Eagle

 

[john h]

Opps maybe because it leaves from Ft Worth not Dallas? Doesnt show on Ft Worth 

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

The discontinuation is of the Houston section of the Texas Eagle that is shown in faded red, not of the Heartland Flyer.

 

[cpotisch]

The discontinuation is of the Houston section of the Texas Eagle that is shown in faded red, not of the Heartland Flyer.

I don’t think so. From what I’m seeing, it definitely seems to be talking about the Flyer, considering it’s lower case and lined up (implying a continuation of the preceding text). Perhaps someone familiar with the history of the Eagle and/or Flyer can jump in here?

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

I don’t think so. From what I’m seeing, it definitely seems to be talking about the Flyer, considering it’s lower case and lined up (implying a continuation of the preceding text). Perhaps someone familiar with the history of the Eagle and/or Flyer can jump in here?

According to http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/collegesta.htm , the Houston section was discontinued in 1995. Also, the word "discontinued" on the diagram is lined up with a red arrow pointing to the faded line. Lastly, the line through Phoenix is also marked as discontinued and uses the same faded line that is used for the former Houston branch. However, I believe it was poor choice to use the same font without a line between the information about the Heartland Flyer and the Houston section, as it does make them appear to be referring to the same thing.

 

[me_little_me]

I'd suggest that anyone finding an error in Wikipedia edit the information there. That's how Wikipedia was created in the first place.

 

[jis]

I agree with brianpmcdonnell17. The representation is less clear than desirable. Fixing that diagram is non-trivial, and the information is at best ambiguous, so I refrained from editing anything. I do fix a lot of errors in Wikipedia, and also contribute monetarily towards its continued existence.

 

[john h]

Ok makes sense thanks

 

[cpotisch]

I agree with brianpmcdonnell17. The representation is less clear than desirable. Fixing that diagram is non-trivial, and the information is at best ambiguous, so I refrained from editing anything. I do fix a lot of errors in Wikipedia, and also contribute monetarily towards its continued existence.

Yeah, those route diagrams are pretty absurdly complicated. Dealing with and editing s-line succession templates is bad enough, but those diagrams are just hell.

 

[Seaboard92]

I agree with brianpmcdonnell17. The representation is less clear than desirable. Fixing that diagram is non-trivial, and the information is at best ambiguous, so I refrained from editing anything. I do fix a lot of errors in Wikipedia, and also contribute monetarily towards its continued existence.

Thank you for contributing to it because it is one of my greatest sources of entertainment. I love reading Wikipedia.

 

[The Journalist]

The "discontinued" notation refers to the Houston branch-the lighter shaded line. The Heartland Flyer notation is referring to the same-colored line leaving the route to the left. 

Edit: Ideally the "discontinued" line should be above the "Heartland Flyer" line since that's what the diagram shows. I'm not sure how to do this and don't want to mess up the diagram, but I did make a small edit: adding "Houston Branch" to the "discontinued" note.

 

[cpotisch]

10 hours ago, jis said:
I agree with brianpmcdonnell17. The representation is less clear than desirable. Fixing that diagram is non-trivial, and the information is at best ambiguous, so I refrained from editing anything. I do fix a lot of errors in Wikipedia, and also contribute monetarily towards its continued existence.

Thank you for contributing to it because it is one of my greatest sources of entertainment. I love reading Wikipedia

You could contribute plenty as well if you wanted! It is quite a satisfying thing to update and correct info on there, if I may say so myself. ^_^

And side note, I will hopefully reach the 500 total edits necessary for extended-confirmed user rights within the next couple weeks! 

 

[The Journalist]

Aaaaand someone removed the edit. Oh well. 

 

[VTTrain]

Aaaaand someone removed the edit. Oh well. 

What was the reason given for the removal?

 

[cpotisch]

Aaaaand someone removed the edit. Oh well. 

What was the reason given for the removal?

None. They just reverted it with no note.

Maybe someone here who isn’t as lazy as me could bring this whole thing up on this template’s talk page to try and reach consensus on what can or should be done about this?

 

[VTTrain]

None. They just reverted it with no note.

Did an editor revert it or just a random user?

 

[cpotisch]

None. They just reverted it with no note.

 Did an editor revert it or just a random user?

Huh? What do you mean?

 

[VTTrain]

Huh? What do you mean?

I used the wrong term.  My question should have been, "Did an Administrator revert it or just some random user?"

 

[cpotisch]

Huh? What do you mean?

I used the wrong term.  My question should have been, "Did an Administrator revert it or just some random user?"

It’s user Useddenim, who is not an admin, but does have rollback rights, template editor rights, and file mover rights. So I’m going to assume this person knows what they’re doing here. 

 

[Anderson]

Tried to split the baby by clarifying what was discontinued.

 

[keelhauled]

There are enough thoroughly pointless and incredibly pedantic discussions to be had on Wikipedia that I am reluctant to replicate the experience here, but I feel I should point out that the picture in the original post is somewhat misleading, perhaps by virtue of being from a mobile browser--on my computer the template displays differently, which a more prominent arrow and a line break that seems clear to me.

 

[jis]

This is partly the reason that I did not bother trying to fix it. The ROI is hard to justify given the relative minorness of the issue. All those infinitely pedantic arguments with highly opinionated others in the group that claims ownership of these pages can get infuriating. So unless there is a major misinformation I don't bother. Even though the diagram may be a little borderline, the text description of what happened is correct.

 

[The Journalist]

Indeed, hence my fairly low-effort attempt to clarify it. One of the most "amusing" pages on wikipedia is "List of lamest edit wars."