# Talk:December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment

Can we come up with a better title, one that is more user-friendly?  Most people in the general public do not know the term "Spuyten Duyvil".  Most will try "2013 New York City train derailment" ... or "2013 Metro North train derailment" ... or "2013 Bronx train derailment" ... or some such.  Few will know the very specific title of "Spuyten Duyvil".  Thoughts?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The current title it just got moved to is even worse, there have already been several other derailments- albeit without fatalities - in NYC in the current year. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
A better article title would be December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment---especially given that there was a derailment on the next curve southbound in July 2013. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013 Bronx Derailment would be a better title. Few people outside New York know what Spuyten Duyvil is and the article is hard to find under this name Timo46 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
So add a redirect from the titles you're thinking of. The only change I would make to the current one would be to add MetroNorth to the mix, something like December 2013 Metro North Spuyten Duyvil derailment, if that isn't getting too unwieldy... —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Geez... why specific, less familiar names? I prefer "2013 New York City derailment(s)". What do you think? George Ho (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the title should not contain the phrase "Spuyten Duyvil".  It is an unfamiliar term to 99% of the population.  The general public will search under "New York City" or "Bronx" or "Metro North", etc.  If anything, the "Spuyten Duyvil" title should be a redirect to the more user-friendly title that is (hopefully) selected.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"December 2013 Bronx train derailment" would be good since there were other derailments in the city this year. Epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
What's wrong with precision? Personally, I think the original title was fine (Spuyten Duyvil derailment) as the derailment was in sight of the station. Redirects are cheap, use them. Mjroots (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Shall I create a new request right now? George Ho (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Next several days are busy for me; I would cancel other activities if my pix were really valuable. Good thing I'm not trying to make a living as a news photographer. Must get a bigger camera for the occasional long-range work like this. These two are uploaded exactly as the camera made them, and I inserted one. Other retouchers ought to crop, increase contrast, etc and maybe they'll think I inserted the wrong one. I hope to retouch and upload a few more before Sunday's road trip, but they will be even less relevant than these. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So, maybe this is the best after crop and adjust and maybe a fellow editor will think it better than what I sent before. No others of the few dozen I snapped are really better. The next day that I have nothing scheduled is Saturday. I'll watch the news to find whether the SD station offers useful views. For that matter if opportunities seem really good I'll drop a scheduled meeting or something. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Metro-North, as usual, has some great pictures on its Flickr stream of the repair work, which are under a CC-BY-2.0 license, so we'll probably want to use some of them. We should also have a map, probably from OpenStreetMap.And we might as well get a Commons category set up soon, too. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that ATC was operational on other parts of the Metro-North line, but not at this curve.  It would be interesting to know why.  This curve seems to be a prime candidate for ATC protection.  --Westwind273 (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The dicussion has been about PTC, not ATC (which I do think is in use on some other parts of the MNRR system). Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
i don't think that this part of the line has ATC yet… Epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a few photos of the July 2013 freight derailment that took place before this one, just in case anyone is curious. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

<http://new.mta.info/news-metro-north-permut-giulietti/2014/01/10/mta-announces-new-president-metro-north-railroad> (Link to MNRR press release on Permut's departure)
I believe that Permut's retirement and departure is significant enough to merit mention, as a result of Metro-North's bad year. I understand if people disagree with me on this. Northeastern292 (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Northeastern292

Yes, but to be mentioned in this article, it would have to be shown to be related to the accident, or speculated to be as such. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Report Finds Punctuality Trumps Safety at Metro-North www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14
Operation Deep Dive Metro-North Commuter Railroad Safety Assessment www.fra.dot.gov (PDF available)
Alvar☮ 13:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I read the Times story too. Thanks for the link to the FRA document. I will be incorporating this into the article when I have a chance to read through it. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: - The NTSB have released an open docket too. May be some good material there. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There was another accident in almost this exact spot on the night of January 13, 1882.  The Western Express from Chicago to NYC stopped suddenly because a passenger pulled on the stop cord.  The Tarrytown Special, also heading south, couldn't see the stopped train because of the curve of the tracks.  The Tarrytown smashed into the last car of the Western Express, which was then pushed into the next car forward. The two cars caught on fire, and despite efforts to quell the flames with river water and snow, eight people died and nineteen people were injured. Webster Wagner, Senator of NYS and inventor of the Wagner Sleeping Car and Wagner Palace Car, was in the last car of the Express. The Senator was burned beyond recognition and was only able to be identified by his pocketwatch and some senatorial papers in his pocket.  
http://myinwood.net/the-spuyten-duyvil-railroad-disaster-of-1882/
(Railroad Stories magazine, December 1935)
I only add this because the two accidents seem to have occurred in practically the same exact spot, which I find interesting.  Also, further up on the talk page is a note about the Did You Know page, stating that the 2013 accident of the commuter train "caused the first passenger deaths in the railroad's history".  Unless this Did You Know sentence only includes the Metro-North Commuter train, it wasn't the railroad's first passenger fatality. 
(I've never submitted anything to Wikipedia before, so I hope I've done this right.)
Sosew (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. But to answer your second question, yes the "Did you know" hook was referring to the first fatalities under Metro-North, for any line they operate. oknazevad (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, there have been some recent developments regarding William Rockefeller, the engineer involved in the crash, so I have been helping to keep the relevant part of the page, "Legal actions", up to date. I welcome constructive help in this regard too.TH1980 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment. 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/20131206065711/http://www.myfoxny.com/story/24130821/service-restored-to-affected-ny-train-line to http://www.myfoxny.com/story/24130821/service-restored-to-affected-ny-train-line
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) 19:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:Please don't WP:ABF. As for the victim list, sorry for the wrong link, the correct page is WP:Victim lists. To summarize, victim lists clearly show a systematic coverage bias, and adding details about the victims (as a form of WP:MEMORIAL) does not add anything relevant to the article, unless said victims already have an article of their own, in which case it is appropriate to discuss it in both articles (the incident and the victim's page). Is it really relevant that one of the victims was a recent Korean immigrant, or that one was from Montrose, New York? No. The position of the victims, on the other hand, informs as to the violence of the incident.
For example, compare with the recent derailment in Taiwan. We don't have a victim list, yet it does not remove anything from the article. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I know well it's an essay (which doesn't, however, mean it can just be thrown out "because it's an essay"), and templating doesn't exempt you from discussing controversial matters on the talk page. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@107.190.33.254:Yes it can, when there's a discussion, two in fact, both within the last two years, of a proposal to formalize that essay's position that did not find consensus, but instead found consensus to continue deciding this on a case-by-case basis. There is no need for a third opinion when consensus that has been reaffirmed elsewhere exists.I can see that you're upset about people including it in the Taiwan crash article. But going around and changing other articles because you're not getting your way on one is, unambiguously IMO, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which forfeits a good-faith assumption on my part.I will nonetheless commend your attention to the discussion that does matter in this instance], in which a proposal to formalize the position of that essay did not find consensus; what did was "that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis" as I wrote in my edit summary.If, having read this (which I will assume you did, per WP:BLANKING, if you delete the warning I left on your talk page), you revert again anyway, we will be discussing this at AN/I, or more accurately we will be discussing how you have handled this.I also wonder why this TekSavvy account from Quebec just pops up in late September, suddenly seeming incredible knowledgeable about policy and insisting that they are a "regular". Are you perhaps someone who got banned/indefblocked before? Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Pings don't work on IPsI'm not upset about anything. In fact, there's not even a list in the Taiwan article for me to be upset... As for 'disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point', one can hardly claim that removing the list on 1 article is "disrupting".As for the rest of the bad-faith, I just don't have an account, never had and, except for the occasional situation, don't see a problem with that.
Now back to the real discussion. If this is to be discussed on a case by case basis, then let's start. What does the victim list add to the article in terms of encyclopedic content, beyond mere trivia? In my opinion, knowing the ethnicity of the victims or where they were headed isn't particularly relevant (it's not like this was some form of incident where those individuals were specifically targeted, in which case yes the information would be relevant) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
"As for the rest of the bad-faith, I just don't have an account, never had and, except for the occasional situation, don't see a problem with that." Just what you'd expect a sock to say, isn't it? Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I agree with the anon. This victim list is too detailed for an encyclopedia. It reads like a newspaper story profiling the victims that would have been published a day or two after the crash as a follow-up story. Unsurprisingly, that's exactly what the references used for the list are. I think it should be removed as well. oknazevad (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, a real person, one who's worked on this article before, one I can take seriously. How about we just put it in a box on the side and hat it? Some people have accepted that as a solution in other articles. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that the victim list is too detailed. But since there were only four deaths here (as opposed to 18 in the Taiwan accident) it isn't too extensive to mention the names and ages, but nothing more. A quote box on the side would be fine. epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 3O Response: I'd like to point out that WP:NOTMEMORIAL/MEMORIAL and WP:VICTIM both refer to stand-alone articles about victims.  They don't have anything to say about lists of victims within an article on a notable subject.  Wikipedia:Victim lists is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and does not appear to be an accurate reflection on such.  While essays often give good general editing advice, they may also represent minority opinions and following such advice is entirely optional.
Looking at the needs of this specific article, I don't really see the relevance of the descriptions, one of which had no inline citation.  The four fatalities doesn't seem excessive, and if just listing their names it could be done inline.  (The side quote boxes are discouraged per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE for accessibility.)  Could say that the fatalities were all adults, rather than specifying ages.  I would suggest keeping the Vivian Yee reference in case readers are interested in reading more about the victims.  This is a non-binding third opinion. While I hope it is helpful, you have no more obligation to follow it than you do to follow the advice of an essay. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

With a list this short, I wonder if we might also put it in a note, via {{efn}}, with a little less info. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this enough info or have I removed too much? I've also formatted all notes to be of a similar format.107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, @Dadgeoff: just edited the article, saying Article incorrectly described Linda Smith as uninjured in one sentence and then said that she was one of the injured in the very next sentence. There were more sources that described her as being injured, and the source on the sentence for her being injured seemed to majorly be about her sister's passing, and the link is currently nonfunctional for verification. Do you have any idea whether this is the case? I hope you are doing well. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)