Jump to content

Talk:Newark and New York Branch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 40°42′53″N 74°05′14″W / 40.7146°N 74.0873°W / 40.7146; -74.0873
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coordinate error

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes: The site of bridge is actually north of cited coordinates and west of these 40°42′53″N 74°05′14″W / 40.7146°N 74.0873°W / 40.7146; -74.0873" Crossed over both rivers as well as the the point between them Djflem (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CRRNJ Passaic River Bridge

[edit]

CRRNJ Passaic River Bridge would be better merged into this article, no? The no longer existing structure served its lifetime for this CNJ line. As both are gone is their history not better consolidated in one article since most of info is the same, with the bridge specifics being covered in a paragraph? Djflem (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion withdrawn. Djflem (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Transfer branch

[edit]

There were only a few trains a day along the Newark Transfer branch, see this timetable http://www.thejoekorner.com/scripted-ticket-display.shtm?http://www.thejoekorner.com/brochures/crrnj-main/cnj-main-15.jpg Should this be added to the page? Jaysbro (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A branch from Elizabethport on the main line to Brills Junction from a connection at the Newark transfer was completed in 1872. The Manufacturers Railroad was put into operation in 1882 and the extension to the Passaic River extension was completed in 1916.Djflem (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://jcrhs.org/cnjtowers3.html Djflem (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Newark and New York 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B or C class article?

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Content assessment: B-class: The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.

One can say that this is true of this article, which has sufficient references cited. Thus, meets C-class, at least.Djflem (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 December 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Doesn't seem like there's many strong opinions either way on the capitalization of Branch, so I've gone for consistency with High Bridge Branch. If anyone does have a strong opinion on the capitalization, feel free to open a new RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newark and New York Railroad → Newark and New York branch – This article is about the physical line, not the company. The company was incorporated in 1866 and merged into the Central Railroad of New Jersey in 1873. Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to support that that was indeed the name, common or otherwise? Otherwise rather random and original research, no? Could it have been called the Newark Branch similar to Erie's Newark Branch? Djflem (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djflem It's called that in the USRA's Final System Plan and also in a 1965 employee timetable. It's also found in various government reports, e.g. ([1]). The March 1945 Official Guide of the Railways refers to "New York-Newark Branch"; same concept, different word order, and might be descriptive usage. The Official Guide generally showed routes/services, not lines. Mackensen (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then the suggestion is New York–Newark Branch? Djflem (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the lack of clarity. Almost all sources call it the Newark and New York branch. The hyphenation and word order was only found in the Official Guide. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? Why not go with those you've presented above? Seem the Final System Plan page 215 calls it the West Side Branch, which makes sense since line was truncated in 1940s. Djflem (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Final System Plan, the 1965 employee timetable, and numerous other government reports all call it the Newark and New York branch, which is why I prefer that name. The West Side branch refers to that part of the branch east of the Hackensack River after it was severed in 1946. The line west of the Hackensack River was used after that point through the formation of Conrail. You'll find it listed in Volume I of the Final System Plan, page 283. It was not abandoned in 1946.
Sources from before the 1946 accident call this line the Newark and New York branch. Examples:1, 2, 3, 4. Sources after the 1946 accident refer to the branch west of the Hackensack River as the Newark and New York branch. East of the Hackensack River is the West Side branch (FSP Volume I). The West Side branch doesn't need its own article.
The main purpose for proposing a move is that we're dealing with a piece of physical infrastructure, not a company. That company was called the Newark and New York Railroad. It ceased to exist in 1873. Its line was called the Newark and New York branch. That name referred to the entire branch until 1946, and then most of it until at least 1976. West Side branch referred to part of the line after 1946. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind the name change was made clear in your proposal. (I do not know that the company seized to exist in 1873 (dissolved?); it may have been acquired CNJ, which is different. A factoid that could be added to article, if sources are found) Not suggesting new articles. Currently, Newark and New York Railroad is a redirect which you created (Sept 2018). That namespace would have to be cleared in order for this to be renamed since Branch is capitalized in proliferation of sources provided, and that would be consistent with common name. Djflem (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was merged into the CNJ in 1873, at which point the corporate form ceased to exist. Capitalizing branch would probably run afoul of MOS:NCCAPS. Moving an article over an existing redirect or updating inbound links are routine tasks. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for merger? (as opposed to ownership)? The sources have it capitalized and is standard naming convention. (Newark Branch, Danbury Branch, Princeton Branch, Salem Branch, etc.) Djflem (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ICC valuation report for the Central Railroad of New Jersey, page 760. Also the Final System Reports that you yourself quoted above; those reports always listed submerged owners (such as the North Pennsylvania Railroad under the Reading) in such situations. Anyway, the ICC report is explicit.
Regarding the name, see Talk:Highland branch#Requested move 16 May 2020 for a contrary example. Mackensen (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination itself states that for that particular line, sources themselves use the lower case, whereas here the proliferation of sources use the upper case. Djflem (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because if even a few sources use the lower case, MOS:NCCAPS dictates using lower case and not treating it as a proper name. See [2] for an example of where it's not capitalized. Taking that into consideration, I proposed lower case. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas Wikipedia:Article titles would dictate consistency, which the 'guideline' cited does not address and the local discussion cited (4 participants) minimalized. (When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.. I would suggest the discussion was conducted by spelling and punctuation "specialists". Djflem (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's usually the case for the manual of style. You're welcome to indicate a preference for an upper-cased "Branch" as part of the article title. I have no objection to such. Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article is primarily about the physical line, not the corporation. I find Mackensen's evidence that "Newark and New York branch" is the common name to be convincing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pi.1415926535: Which evidence? Clearly it's as much a proper name now as when it was in as in 1913 (as mentioned in the NY Times. Do you suggest Newton Lower Falls Branch be renamed as well? Djflem (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see also "Newark and New York Branch over NJ21" (PDF). New Jersey Historic Bridge Data. NJDOT. 2007. p. 78., a historical survey from 2007. Djflem (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a strong opinion about the capitalization question for this case; it's a sidebar to the more important switch away from the company name. For whatever reason, Boston-area sources tend to be more consistent about capitalizing, which is why that article is capitalized. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As in Boston area, NY metropolitan area 'branches' tend to be consistently capitalised. Djflem (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Newark and New York Branch, replacing redirect, a proper title. 06:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to Newark and New York Branch. Consistent with our other CNJ line, the High Bridge Branch. The "nothing is a proper noun" cultists can address capitalization on their own time. stricken—I think "Branch" reflects the predominant and preferable usage, but "branch" is a respectable minority (for railroad lines in general) and like others, I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to insist on one or the other. Choess (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newark_and_New_York_Branch&oldid=1264789876"