User talk:DanTD/Archive 6

This is a Wikimedia Commons user page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanTD/Archive_6.

Wikimedia Commons

Town of Hampstead

There's a problem though. Two, even.

1. Naming it "Town of" is not the standard way. Maybe it's on en.wiki. But this is not en.wiki, this is Commons.
2. A correct name is the basis for automatic categorization of "People of...." (see template {{People of the United States by city}}). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

First, the name is "Hempstead," not "Hampstead." Second, when people think of Hempstead, New York, they tend to think of the Village of Hempstead, not the town. Third, there was already a discussion on this topic two years ago, and we agreed to distinguish town names from village names in this manner. As for "People of" category, the disambiguation problem exists there too. ----DanTD (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Then we should find another way. Ie. "Hempstead (town), New York" and "Hempstead (village), New York". Where did that discussion take place? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It started here then took off from there. All Towns on Long Island have had their categories renamed except for two of them (Town of North Hempstead, New York and Town of Shelter Island, New York), and I'm still trying to get North Hempstead renamed. ----DanTD (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because of that wouldn't be better to think to a common way to name these towns in an uniform way (like ie [Georgia (U.S. state)]? It affects its children categories (which must be named after the parent one, so if the place is XXX the subcategories must be People of XXX) and for this reason we should adopt a categorization like "Place (town), state" and "Place (village), state" rather than "Town of place, state". -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This may be true, but there's the issue of readability here. ----DanTD (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who grew up in the Town of Hempstead (but not in the village of Hempstead): that's what we call them. "Town of Hempstead" and "Hempstead". Yes, it's confusing to outsiders, but those really are what they are almost always called by locals. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then we can as well work on a way to find a satisfactory, non-ambiguous, way of categorizing those exceptions (btw why categorizing people by hamlets, if the nearest administrative division is the township?). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There are hamlets that share the same names as the towns they're in too. I for one grew up in the Town of Brookhaven, but not the hamlet and CDP of Brookhaven. Jmabel and I are fellow ex-Long Islanders, so we both understand these issues. ----DanTD (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok. 2 things then: 1. we should find a way to categorize these exceptions in uniform way and 2. always remember that people of hamlets are child categories of people of the towns they're into ;-) -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's no good at all, Dan. Towns should be disambiguated in other ways, one or two is a manageable exception, too many is completely out of standard. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's better than what was there before, that's for sure. ----DanTD (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right, but that should not be preventing us from seeking for an even better solution: have a look here and see the position of Hempstead, Montgomery, and Smithtown: category names style should be as the most uniform as possible in order to allow them to be managed both by templates and bots. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• For now I have somewhat fixed the problem of non-standard category names: see here at Example #4 section. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 6⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Selma-Smithfield Amtrak-2-.JPG

Looking at File:Selma-Smithfield Amtrak-2-.JPG that appears to be a dining car behind the Amfleet cafe. Neither the Carolinian nor the Palmetto would normally have one. Odd. Mackensen (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Do any other Amtrak services use that curved connecting track? Keep in mind also, this picture was taken in 2008. ----DanTD (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Silver Star would pass through, though the dining car on the end is a strange configuration unless there are Viewliners on the rear (how much of a curve?) that I can't see. I don't suppose you recall if the train was moving? Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If I recall, it did stop there briefly. I've been on the Silver Star before, and admittedly, I didn't recognize that many locations within North or South Carolina, usually because it was the middle of the night and I was trying to sleep, only to wake up in the middle of nowhere while the train was being sidetracked for some long-ass freight train going in the opposite direction. ----DanTD (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Suburban" Amtrak station in Washington, DC

Yes, the geotags for those files are clearly incorrect. I've found a variety of errors in the metadata of Documerica photos. Ostensibly the geotags were provided by NARA, although the external link to "NARA geographical record" is a dead link. The instructions for these NARA files says, "...please do not modify the other fields." So we're not supposed to remove the erroneous geotags. I suppose the only recourse is to submit a correction in the NARA error log; I dunno if anyone will ever get around to responding to those.

BTW the station in the photos is most likely the old Capital Beltway station in Maryland, since that's the only suburban station that was served by the Metroliner. But since the title or documentation of the photo itself doesn't name the station, I'm not sure if we can add that information to the metadata. Caseyjonz (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photographs taken on a particular date

I'm failing to see how Category:Photographs taken on 2008-09-14 or other date is useful. Will all our millions of dated pictures get such a category? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Somebody just started adding specific dates to our pictures. ----DanTD (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear DanTD,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Photographer's Barnstar

Thank you so much for the large number of great photographs that you have uploaded over the years, especially those related to railroads and rail transportation. Please accept this barnstar as a small token of my appreciation. Photographers like you are a major reason why Wikimedia Commons is such a great resource. Thanks again for all your hard work, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Alcatraz

Just a note to say thanks for everything you do here. I found my ferry ticket for the cruise to Alcatraz. It states the cruise was on September 6, 2012. So, all of my Alcatraz Island photos were definitely taken on 2012-09-06. --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Pershing Square

I think you've made a number of mistakes in regard to Pershing Square. The lit up lettering over the restaurant refers to the Square itself, not to the restaurant, which is the Central Cafe. Further, Pershing Square is simply that, a square, it is not a "neighborhood" not being large enough to be one, and also not having any residential buildings around it. I've corrected these mistakes. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, if there were a restaurant called Pershing Square, a proper disambiguation for it would be something on the order of [[:Category:Pershing Square (restaurant}]]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Mbta-park-street-under.jpg

File:Mbta-park-street-under.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Category Question

With over 200 photos in the Interstate 75 in Georgia category, I've been thinking of creating categories under it. Like creating a Interstate 75 in Tift County, Georgia which would be under both Interstate 75 in Georgia and Transport in Tift County, Georgia. I know this would be unprecedented as no highway has categories by county, but with so many photos in Interstate 75 in Georgia and Interstate 10 in Florida I thought it would be worthwhile. Since you create a lot of categories, I wanted to see if this sounded like a logical move.

Believe it or not, I thought about doing just that with Interstate 95 in Virginia, although I was considering other options as well. ----DanTD (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, there is a lot in Interstate 95 in Virginia. What other options were you considering? --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Aside from sticking just to categories in the big cities, I honestly forgot what they were. A lot of these images have to be renamed, regardless of whether the categories are narrowed down. Also, I think more should be added to the rest area category, but none of the ones that are there now belong in that one. ----DanTD (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Chevrolet C/K (1st generation)" category in the "Chevrolet C/K (1960)" one?

Hello!

I try to better categorize the Chevrolet C/K (1960), but I have a few question to ask to you, as you created it:

• Why did you create a Chevrolet C/K (1st generation) category inside the Chevrolet C/K (1960) one? And are the 3 "PK" trucks in this category too different to be with the other C/K (1960) ones ?
• As you can see now in the Chevrolet C/K (1960) category, I grouped 1960-1961 Apache and Viking models together in child categories. Maybe it was what you intended to do (but with 1962+ trucks) with the Chevrolet C/K (1st generation) category?
• Maybe would it be better to have another sub-categories to put 1962-1966 models in. So people won't think the trucks they see in the root of the Chevrolet C/K (1960) category are possibly 1960-1961 ones?

Thanks for your answers.
Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you can credit User:Queeg for creating the Chevrolet C/K (1st generation) category. I think it'd be better off merged into Chevrolet C/K (1960), myself. As for the Apache and Viking names, they seem to be more trim packages than anything else in 1960 and 1961. ----DanTD (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• User:Queeg? It's weird, only your alias appears in the page, for me??? Anyway, I'll "slip" the 3 PK trucks in the upper category, then.
• About the Apache, Viking and Spartan names, it was more than trim level as, like said in WP:
  Actual badging on trucks still carried the series name system from the previous generation. The 10, 20, 30, and 40 series (C or K) were badged as "Apache", 50, and 60 series trucks were badged as "Viking", and the largest 70, 80, and 90 series models were marked "Spartan"
  This is confirmed by external sources, but you can see the Apache & co labels disappear with the 1962 model.
  I picked up some C/K Apache pictures in the then generic Apache category (which was in fact supposed to have only 1955-1959 Task Force trucks, although these labels appeared only in 1958), so people seem to mix them up sometimes. That's why I thought it was better to have a strong differentiation between Task Force and C/K Apache & co trucks, and common categories to gather them, as I created them. But should we have a sibling category for the 1962-1966 trucks (named... 1962-1966 Chevrolet C/K?), so people "visiting" the Chevrolet C/K (1960) category automatically see the difference between pre- and after 1962 face-lift trucks?
• I'll certainly add a Suburban sub-category, as there is at least 9 "C/K 1st" models in this category and in the generic Chevrolet Suburban one
  BarnCas (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Check the history of any of the three trucks containing that category. In fact, I'll show it to you now. I suppose I was hoping that if there was some sudden consensus to use the one Queeg made, all the others in the category I created would be shifter there, or the ones in his category would be shifted to mine. ----DanTD (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand: you just validate the creation of Queeg. That's why one can only see your alias in the category logs... As I thought you created the two categories, I preferred to be polite and ask you before vacuuming this useless sub-category. But as Queeg no longer exist on WP and seemed not to be a nice person, I won't be so obliging
What do you think about the 1962-1966 Chevrolet C/K category idea? Useful or useless item?
BarnCas (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd hold off on splitting off the 1962-66's for the time being. There's at least one 1960-66 Chevy pickup in this category that can't necessarily be narrowed down to either 1960-61 or 1962-66. Who's to say another one won't come along? As for the Suburbans, many of them actually pre-date the C/K Series. Plus, in the case of ambulances, school buses and similar vehicles, it's always a good idea to be able to distinguish between Suburbans and Panel Trucks with conversion jobs. ----DanTD (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

For me, that's the purpose of categories: you put pictures of cars/trucks/whatever you can really identify in it, and what cannot be stays out the categories.
I often make researches about particular cars for some external projects. If you have a category with 50, 100 or more pictures of a particular car, but showing 4 or 5 generations of that car, I find it useless, or at least a waste of time, as you have to compare a lot of pictures before being able to see the difference between cars. With already existing sub-categories, it's really easier...
For "our" C/K 1960 example, the "sure 1962-1966" trucks would be in their own category, while the truck you say it cannot be identified (which one is it, by the way?) would stay out. So no mistake possible for somebody who wants to see what the 1960-61 trucks or the 1962-66 ones look like.
Same think for the Suburban models. Sure, put in, potential modified Panel van or any doubt, stays out. Thinks are more clear that way, aren't they ?

But, I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker: I'm not sure to understand exactly what you mean with "many of them actually pre-date the C/K Series", when talking about Suburban cars. I intend to create the pre-41 and "AK series" sub-categories for the main Suburban category, the same way I already did it for Advance Design trucks. And the same way some other people did it for GMT410‎ and other more recent chassis.
(By the way: I put a picture in a category only when I'm 99% sure of the identification. I acknowledge that I may make some mistakes sometimes, but I try to correct them as soon as I have new informations )

I understand what you're saying, and I create categories for the same reasons. For the record, I created the category Chevrolet C/K (1960), because the whole period between 1960 and 1966 has the same body style, even with the use of the Apache, Viking, and Spartan names in 1960 and 1961. I didn't say "No, don't make a 1962-66 category," because I'd be a total hypocrite if I did, especially when you consider how many specified categories I've made for other cars and trucks. I am looking forward to your C/K Suburban categories though. I might even throw a few in. ----DanTD (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I created the category Chevrolet C/K (1960), because the whole period between 1960 and 1966 has the same body style

— DanTD

I just find it weird that nobody did it before you. The cars from these years are known to be a whole generation of the C/K, so leaving them in mess in the general category is a kind of non-sense!

But I know that a lot of people just upload the pictures without even trying to see if there is not already hundreds of pictures the same car (or any other thing one can be interested in), and just don't bother to try to categorize them more than "Chevrolet" (when not "unidentified automobile": 3700 pictures today), "House" or "Flower". And with tools like Flinfo, it's worst, as tags from the previous website are most of the time copied without being checked. But they rarely fit the Commons categories

Anyway, here is what I suggest:

• Chevrolet C/K (1960) ambulances‎
• Chevrolet C/K (1960) fire engines
• Chevrolet C/K (1960) Panel van

*

• Chevrolet C/K (1960-61)
  • Chevrolet C/K (1960) Apache‎
  • Chevrolet C/K (1960) Viking‎

• Chevrolet C/K (1962-66)‎

S

• Chevrolet Suburban (1960-1966 C/K)‎

- No sort key (in fact, a blank space) for the generic sub-categories "ambulances & co" and "*" for the model year sort: this is a kind of (non-written?) convention I saw on many pages, and I feel right with this.

- Models in a "model year cat." can also be in a "ambulances & co" one, unless we have enough cars to populate 2 other sub-cats for each. But this is done only with categories with a certain amount of pictures, usually.

- Suburbans are only in Suburbans sub-category, as it it said everywhere this car "was made on a basis of", not "was a".

- Cars that cannot be strongly identified will stay in the Chevrolet C/K (1960).

So is my "theory" of what this category could be. Good idea / I dunno / uggly fuss?
BarnCas (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your renaming requests

Hello DanTD, I really have no problem to work at your renaming requests, but in my opinion you are so active here, that you can get the filemover-rights here. You can try it, if you want to. Kind regards, --Brackenheim (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I should look into that. In the meantime, there are plenty of images just of that one user that still have to be renamed. ----DanTD (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Logging truck with load of saw logs.jpg

Hello!

I changed the GMC Military trucks cat. to GMC CCKW. But maybe was there something wrong with this proposal? If so I'll change back, of course.
(yes, I'm the one who answered )

If it truly was the GMC CCKW, there was nothing wrong with it at all. ----DanTD (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry, I forgot to sign the previous message)
Well, as "yours" really looks like this one and as both have the CCKW cab, for me it's without doubt a CCKW "tractor".
Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Filemover

Considering your high level of experience, I've made you a filemover. INeverCry 02:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Westchester Electric RR Company

I'm mildly surprised we have nothing on this formerly prominent trolley company. Right now its building at 519 S 5th Ave in Mt Vernon is in my picture processing queue. Westchster Electric RR Jim.henderson (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't wait. Speaking of Mount Vernon, I just discovered that Fae uploaded some HABS images of Mount Vernon West (Metro-North station) back in late July. I just uploaded them into the proper commons category. If the former Mount Vernon (NHRR station) could be found, that'd be even better. --DanTD (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes many treasures are hiding among our millions of uncategorized pictures, and even among the tens of thousands of roughly categorized LoC pictures. But it's another nice day, so I'll leave the computer and unfold the bike. Come to think of it, many of my own thousands of unexamined photos will find use when I find time to handle them. As with the one I put into the Mt Vernon article less than an hour ago. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Automobile category questions

When I take a photo of a truck, like this, is it appropriate to have the category Automobiles in Georgia (U.S. state)? It isn't an automobile, but there aren't categories for trucks by state. I noticed the category Category:Chevrolet Avalanche is under both Category:Chevrolet trucks and Category:Chevrolet pickup trucks. Isn't that redundant? I don't know how trucks are categorized so didn't want to mess with it myself. Thanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd leave the automobile category off. Also, yes the trucks cat is redundant to the pickup trucks cat, for the Avalanche. ----DanTD (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tram stops of the MBTA

You may notice I'm doing some jiggery pokery with categories; most shouldn't be an issue, but I wanted to discuss one with you before I did it. Category:Tram stops of the MBTA should probably be under Category:MBTA stations rather than Category:MBTA stations in Massachusetts - not because there's much of a chance the MBTA will ever operate trams outside Massachusetts, but rather because the state is irrelevant. For example, Category:MBTA Commuter Rail stations, if created, would have to be under Category:MBTA stations because it operates across state lines. If you're okay with the switch, I'll make it and recopy the images to Category:MBTA stations in Massachusetts right away. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh also, by making the switch you avoid the situation where stations like Ashmont don't end up in both a category and its subcategory. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think MBTA was planning any trolley lines in Rhode Island, but I just thought it would've made more sense to split-off the trolley and rapid transit station categories (the latter could help with Ashmont). I even thought about splitting the Green Line stations from the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line stations. I've been having some other issues with splitting off the trolley, rapid transit and interurban station categories involving SEPTA as well. ----DanTD (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think three categories for tram, rapid transit, and commuter rail stations (all under Category:MBTA stations) would be a good idea; I don't think it's worth splitting it up further as you'd just be replicating existing categories for the individual lines. (It would be all but three images in Category:Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line, for example). Category:MBTA stations in Massachusetts is useful as a flat category with just individual stations in it and I'd like to keep it that way if possible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if I don't make a separate category for the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line, I still wouldn't mind one for the Green Line, but no further splitting than that. I already moved it out of Massachusetts, but I kind of regret doing it, because it took away an easy transition of the Massachusetts category to the Tram category. ----DanTD (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay if I move it back then? I can do it in about 30 seconds. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, if you feel like sticking some images that are already in Category:MBTA stations in Massachusetts into Category:Tram stops of the MBTA, go for it. Incidentally, I wanted to mention the new category to you, and I still feel like making new categories such as Category:MBTA Red Line stations, Category:MBTA Orange Line stations, and Category:MBTA Blue Line stations, no matter what. ----DanTD (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of those three. Category:MBTA Red Line, Category:MBTA Orange Line, and Category:MBTA Blue Line already function as those categories, as the vast majority of the images and categories in each of those are already of stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you've got images between stations, and categories for portals and yards, and such. But I suppose I can settle for just a general rapid transit station category for a while. ----DanTD (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tram stops of the MBTA is now populated with every image that should be in it, and I even created Category:Former tram stops of the MBTA because there were quite a few. I'll create and populate the rapid transit and commuter rail categories momentarily. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Now, I just have to worry about the SEPTA-related images. ----DanTD (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And done, except for a couple old BERy stations that didn't last till the MBTA era. Not 100% sure how to work the, but there's many ten at most so it's not a high priority. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Mbta-park-street-under.jpg

During this deletion discussion I promised to find a replacement image. It's not the greatest shot, but File:Crowded Red Line platforms at Park Street, February 2014.jpg will probably work just fine as a thumbnail. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly better than the image that I moved to the commons, that's for sure. ----DanTD (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)