Talk:Maine Central Railroad

message: So apparently at some time, the Boston and Maine Railroad owned a majority of Maine Central stock. Does anyone know the details? Did the B&M's 1919 bankeuptcy end that? --SPUI (talk) 10:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It some thing to that fact, i will look it up. also where are the refances for this page? Lazarus-long 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suppose so, since the MEC did serve the province of Quebec. Since it regularly did business in Canada and since it's out of business (more or less) I would argue that it does in fact belong in the defunct Canadian railways category.--Foxhound 06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have restored information deleted by reversion on 30 September for the following reasons. Although User:Oanabay04 asserted "gauges were clearly spelled out and linked to proper Wiki pages," existing descriptions were ambiguous and confusingly referential to Indian gauge. Although the Wikipedia article on 5-foot-6-inch gauge is entitled "Indian gauge" in recognition of the magnificent Indian railway system of today, the same article can be reached by the more appropriate redirect Portland gauge. Subsequent references to broad gauge reach the unnecessarily ambiguous article referring to anything wider than standard gauge, while the actual lines involved were all Portland gauge.
The Portland gauge was decided upon in 1848, a year prior to the Indian gauge decision in 1849. Portland gauge was a significant aspect of early Maine Central Railroad development as a manifestation of the competition between the port cities of Portland and Boston, and is an important element in Maine Central Railroad history. It is misleading to assert "confusion" about the action of the Eastern Railroad with respect to gauge differences in support of Boston business interests in their rivalry with Portland.Thewellman (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point in the second paragraph is excessive detail that the casual reader — who is the target audience for broad articles about an railroad — will get lost in. It is not necessary for this discussion. The Portland gauge ultimately became Indian gauge, which is why the article on Portland redirects to Indian. Plus, the text that was readd is poorly written and needs to be tighter. Purposely reverting an edit to list a term that is going to redirect is considered WP:TE.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Portland gauge

message: I have restored information deleted by User:Oanabay04's reversion on 30 September because without such restoration the article's lead section lacked a reference citation, failed to explain notability, and did not adequately summarize key points of its contents.Thewellman (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds more than reasonable to me and I support the language's restoration. Centpacrr (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Section

message: It would be interesting to have ridership numbers by year or by route. -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passenger stats 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: . Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Substituted at 22:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment