Talk:Amtrak/2005 archive

message: I tidied up the listings for things like Routes, Commuter services, Freight, etc, and combined them under "Amtrak routes and services".  I also took the infrastructure-related items and consolidated them under "Trains and Tracks".  I see Slambo, a fellow UNIX/Railroad geek is cleaning up the route table as well.  Good.  It needs it.  --Plaws 15:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
:The table was a little crunched by the route schematic, so a quick br fixed that.  Adding the background color on the column headers makes them easier to distinguish too.  I used the same background color as we're using on the Trains Wikiportal and in the infobox at the top of the page.  I think it could look a little better if it had a 1px border on the cells, especially for rows where the text wraps (which will happen on smaller monitor resolutions). slambo 15:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I finally got around to moving the lists of "routes" and defunct trains to a new page Amtrak Routes.  --Plaws 19:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:I see that someone decided to re-lengthen this already long article by moving the routes, extant and defunct, back to the main article.  Folks, this is an encyclopedia article.  Not a home page, not a fan page, not the Amtrak Tech and Historical Society meeting page, an encyclopedia article.  I will put it back the way it was.  It'd be nice if the person that is against organization would at least post their rationale here ...  --Plaws 21:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
::Here's your culprit. BobGreenwade 16:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have asked me and I would have. I missed the discussion going on here. --SPUI (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Especially with the wealth of information on defunct routes (many many thanks!), having the route table in the main article is simply uncalled for.  --CComMack 02:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more so when we have to go through it a few times to fix links and bypass redirects and disambigs.  Ugh!  I would agree that these tables should be split out to their own articles and keep this article more on the history of Amtrak.  With the data here, this article is getting way too long and the list/prose ratio is getting a little high; it wouldn't get through WP:FAC with those lists there. slambo 03:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I can understand moving the defunct services to another article, but I don't see the problem with keeping the current ones here. --SPUI (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Routes and Services

message: In the UK, Amtrak is the name of a parcel delivery company.
Possible the two companies are related?
No, but U.S. Amtrak does accept parcels for station-to-station shipment.  Mine disappeared without a trace.  Or as they say, Do all Amtrak trains go to Chicago?  No, but all the baggage does.
It seems like Amtrak is doing better, i.e. less crashes (or maybe I'm just not up on the news).  All I ever used to hear about Amtrak was yet another crash.  The article doesn't seem to address their safety record.  Does anyone have information on this?
hmm...not really... i ride it between home and college every few weeks.  The trains are often late and not very popular.  However, I still glad that it's an transportation option for me. --Macrowiz 20:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Amtrak employs over  22,000 employees and receives a great deal of federal government funding, leading to recurring debates over its elimination.  However, since the terrorist atttacks of September 11, 2001, government funding of Amtrak has been greatly increased. 
Is there a single thing happening in the United States that's not related to terrorism ?
good call.  I'm glad you changed that.--Macrowiz 20:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Amtrak in the UK

message: Often, Amtrak's top management would be more interested in their own political ambitions than in actually making the operation successful, and would often lie to Congress about Amtrak being close to self-sufficiency. This changed when President George W. Bush appointed David Gunn as President of Amtrak. He immediately began a program of trimming fat from the operation, and of giving Congress unvarnished truth, rather than toadying to curry favor, a change that earned him respect from both Congress and the Public.
This does not seem very neutral to me.  I'm certain that no one in Washington has ever muttered the "unvarnished truth," and how can one prove the supposed respect he has with Congress and the public?  Just say what he did in an "unvarnished" way.  What are the facts?  This seems to me a bit too enthusiastic to be considered neutral.
:I agree, not very neutral.  My personal opinion would be to just delete the whole paragraph.  Any other opinions?  JYolkowski 03:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV does NOT mean removing any points of view that are not neutral, it means including all points of view to make the article neutral. If there are criticisms of Amtrak then they do belong in this article, as well as reasonable responses to such criticisms, if they are held by Amtrak users; what I am not sure about is the accuracy of the above. If it is accurate the writer should back it up with sources. — ©    Alex756   05:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah that seems like an POV statemnt to me. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I deleted the reference to the Metrolink (Southern California) contract that Amtrak used to have ...  And then User:SPUI put it back (see the history for the main article).  My reason for deleting the reference is that if we include Metrolink, then we have to include all Amtrak's previous contracts to provide commuter service, i.e. MBTA Commuter Rail.  I think that's a waste of space in the main article, just as I thought it was a waste of space to include a list of every route or train that ever was (see List of Amtrak routes).
So how do we handle it?  Move it to List of Amtrak routes?  Delete it and not worry?  Start Yet Another Article?  --N5UWY/9 - plaws 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a line or two - Amtrak used to have contracts for Metrolink, MBTA, etc... and put the details in the linked articles? --SPUI (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To what end?  To me, it's like the list of defunct routes that used to be included - who cares?  Well, actually, I do and am interested enough that I have perused the list.  But include it as part of a general-audience encyclopedia article?  Why?  What does it add?  --N5UWY/9 - plaws 17:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia and many specialist encyclopedias all in one. A list of all commuter services once operated by Amtrak would be useful - it could alternately be another section on the Amtrak routes article, but should be linked from this article. --SPUI (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past services 

message: Another editor removed the nickname of Amtrak's old logo.  The logo has been called "the pointless arrow" in many industry publications.  I've seen it recently in Trains magazine.  I think the nickname needs to be mentioned to present both positive and negative points of view about the subject.  I'm concerned that other editors are removing text that is critical of the company while leaving text that praises it, thus biasing the article in favor of Amtrak.  Reporting both sides of a story isn't POV, it's balanced reporting.  slambo 11:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as an Amtrak supporter myself, I think there's something to this argument.  However, I also think that it belongs in a separate section on "criticism of Amtrak" rather than scattered through the main section.  At most, the logo caption could read, "nicknamed by some 'the Pointless Arrow'." BobGreenwade 16:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It really shouldn't matter whether one is an "Amtrak supporter" or not.  The term "pointless arrow" has been used by the industry for many years.  I'll agree that "nicknamed by some" would be acceptable.
That's a much more useful and informative caption on the old logo now.  I especially like the way it ties in the introduction of the current logo.  Kudos! slambo 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I was the editor that originally removed the pointless arrow reference. I was afraid that it was a neologism or a slang term used by a few. Obviously I was wrong and I hope the alteration I later made to the caption is better. EdwinHJ | Talk 23:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Amtrak logo nickname and sliding toward bias 

message: I removed the following editorial comment from the lead section:
:(Please visit Amtrak's Fact sheet on their website at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081442674300&ssid=174 , before attempting to change this back to state that the Amtrak name was formed as a portmonteau of words including "travel".  This was never the case as Amtrak's own website clearly states under the first line under the history subheading on the page.  Thank you.) 
The comments were made by an anonymous editor.  69.129.196.234 11:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep losing my session data, the above removal comment was made by Slambo.  Slambo (Speak) 11:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name