689:, which says: "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view... Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view." Qwirkle has taken up too much room in this discussion, and I suggest that they take a step back, and allow other editors to look at the article and the sources, and make their own assessment. —
307:
Green Line. The
Central Subway, defined as Kenmore Station to North Station, has the highest coverage while the surface portions have fewer, and thus lower granularity." I've been finding a bit more, though it's still pretty stubby; there doesn't seem to be much of a real definition or consensus on exactly what it is, so different POVs on that are worth mentioning. The Green Line is a service. The subway is infrastructure.
684:
per the hecka ton of sources present in the article. I have read all of the above arguments that this is a POV fork, and I do not find them compelling. When
Dicklyon said that "the pieces of the central subway are covered in a couple of articles on one piece each, and a couple of other articles," the
306:
article only says "The Green Line is based around the central subway, a group of tunnels which run through the urban core of Boston." with reference to an MIT master's thesis that has only a narrow throwaway definition "There are a total of 28 active AVI sites located throughout the 22.9 miles of the
703:
Three or so points. First, it is not only possible to have a POV fork well sourced, it is indeed possible to have a POV fork which is sourced to exactly the same sources as the parallel article. This is an irrelevancy; if this is your only justification for keeping it, you ought to strike your vote.
447:
Labeling this as a POV fork (which would, in most cases, give reasonable grounds for deletion) is a misrepresentation by the nom. This is a content fork in which the nom disagrees with the capitalisation used for the article title. There is a process for dealing with that issue. Capitalisation of
485:
The obsession with shrinkage aside, that would still be an article which directly parallels other articles. If it differed at all in viewpoint, it would be a POV fork by definition. If it covered the same ground from the same POV it would be a waste of the reader’s
685:
point that they were making is that this article is not a fork of a single article. If some pieces of a subject are covered in one place, and other pieces in another, then an article on that subject is not a fork. I also want to draw
Qwirkle's attention to
207:
709:
Next, each response I’ve posted here is to a separate point, or a direct reply. Are you suggesting inaccuracies, real or perceived, should be left to stand based on how many previous problems have been noted?
456:
and is determined on the basis of objective evidence of capitalisation in sources. While not explicitly an RM discussion atm, there is such a discussion occurring at the article TP at the present. Regards,
623:
Which is not saying that they are the same. Provide evidence yourself if you can, whatever anyone else said is irrelevant. Otherwise I would just assume you don't have any evidence.
201:
259:
279:
160:
730:
into green line. No need for separate article. Tremont Street has separate article but this is because it is notable as being US oldest underground railway.
418:
OK, so you're saying that the pieces of the central subway are covered in a couple of articles on one piece each, and a couple of other articles. I agree.
133:
128:
107:
607:
OK, so you're saying that the pieces of the central subway are covered in a couple of articles on one piece each, and a couple of other articles. I agree.
137:
92:
238:
This stub was created by
Dicklyon as a POV fork during a capitalization disagreement. It does not and will never contain any information not found in
167:
120:
242:(as the Central Subway is the set of tunnels used by the Green Line, two of which already have separate articles), and should be redirected to it.
706:
Next, whether this is a fork of one article, or several doesn’t seem to change whether it is a POV fork or not, how do you you see it as doing so?
384:, which has its own article, and doesn't mention "central subway" at all. No article covers the system of tunnels known as the central subway.
609:
says it all. All of the components of the
Central Subway are covered in existing articles. The creator of this fork conceded that already.
222:
189:
547:
Certainly not. The central subway includes the
Tremont Street subway and is used by the Green Line. It's not the same as either.
60:
87:
80:
17:
183:
179:
124:
758:
719:
698:
674:
632:
618:
600:
570:
556:
542:
524:
495:
480:
466:
427:
413:
393:
375:
353:
335:
316:
291:
271:
251:
62:
101:
97:
740:
653:
229:
326:
Obvious POV fork is
Obvious. There should almost never be two separate articles about subjects so interconnected.
775:
40:
731:
462:
287:
267:
247:
116:
68:
400:
381:
195:
771:
512:
359:
36:
754:
58:
694:
215:
591:
If you have evidence, then provide it yourself, don't try to put words into other people's mouth.
686:
552:
476:
458:
423:
389:
349:
312:
283:
263:
243:
715:
614:
566:
538:
508:
491:
409:
371:
341:
331:
239:
76:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
770:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
453:
750:
303:
53:
690:
665:
340:
There is no other article on these tunnels. The central subway is barely mentioned at
628:
596:
548:
520:
472:
419:
385:
345:
308:
711:
610:
562:
534:
487:
405:
367:
327:
154:
404:
Hence the explicit mention of “and its extensions” above. Answered before asked.
362:
and its extensions; the only thing this ads is POV slant and bad grammar. (
624:
592:
516:
449:
399:
That article is mostly focused on the first tunnel; barely mentions the
380:
That article is mostly focused on the first tunnel; barely mentions the
471:
And we can make it an RM discussion if someone proposes to cap it.
766:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
364:
took nearly 200 cars per hour off the congested
Tremont Street.
743:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
656:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
507:
Unless it can be shown that
Central subway is the same as
150:
146:
142:
214:
749:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
662:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
260:
280:list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions
358:It is extensively covered in the articles on the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
778:). No further edits should be made to this page.
278:Note: This discussion has been included in the
258:Note: This discussion has been included in the
561:Hence the “largely’. Again, already answered.
228:
8:
108:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
277:
257:
606:
398:
363:
529:That’s already been largely conceded
7:
515:, then it warrants its own article.
533:, just a few lines up on the page.
342:Green Line (MBTA)#Route description
24:
93:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
83:(AfD)? Read these primers!
795:
759:04:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
720:01:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
699:16:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
675:07:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
633:13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
619:13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
601:13:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
571:19:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
557:18:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
543:14:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
525:14:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
496:14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
481:01:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
467:00:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
428:23:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
414:22:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
394:21:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
376:18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
354:04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
336:00:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
317:22:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
292:21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
272:21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
252:21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
768:Please do not modify it.
531:by the article’s creator
63:15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
732:User:Davidstewartharvey
448:the title is guided by
117:Central subway (Boston)
69:Central subway (Boston)
401:Boylston Street subway
382:Boylston Street subway
513:Tremont Street Subway
360:Tremont Street Subway
81:Articles for deletion
605:I wouldn’t need to.
344:, and not defined.
761:
677:
673:
509:Green Line (MBTA)
294:
274:
240:Green Line (MBTA)
98:Guide to deletion
88:How to contribute
786:
748:
746:
744:
672:
670:
663:
661:
659:
657:
233:
232:
218:
170:
158:
140:
78:
34:
794:
793:
789:
788:
787:
785:
784:
783:
782:
776:deletion review
762:
739:
737:
678:
666:
664:
652:
650:
304:MBTA Green Line
175:
166:
131:
115:
112:
75:
72:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
792:
790:
781:
780:
747:
736:
735:
734:
725:
724:
723:
660:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
320:
319:
296:
295:
275:
236:
235:
172:
111:
110:
105:
95:
90:
73:
71:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
791:
779:
777:
773:
769:
764:
763:
760:
756:
752:
745:
742:
733:
729:
726:
722:
721:
717:
713:
707:
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
688:
683:
680:
679:
676:
671:
669:
658:
655:
634:
630:
626:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
572:
568:
564:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
497:
493:
489:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
459:Cinderella157
455:
451:
446:
443:
442:
429:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
411:
407:
403:
402:
397:
396:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
325:
322:
321:
318:
314:
310:
305:
301:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:Pi.1415926535
281:
276:
273:
269:
265:
264:Pi.1415926535
261:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
244:Pi.1415926535
241:
231:
227:
224:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
181:
178:
177:Find sources:
173:
169:
165:
162:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
135:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:
109:
106:
103:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
85:
84:
82:
77:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
59:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
767:
765:
738:
728:Delete/Merge
727:
708:
705:
681:
667:
651:
530:
504:
444:
323:
299:
237:
225:
219:
211:
204:
198:
192:
186:
176:
163:
74:
54:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
687:WP:BLUDGEON
202:free images
751:Jack Frost
668:Sandstein
55:Ritchie333
772:talk page
691:Toughpigs
454:WP:NCCAPS
37:talk page
774:or in a
741:Relisted
654:Relisted
549:Dicklyon
473:Dicklyon
450:MOS:CAPS
420:Dicklyon
386:Dicklyon
346:Dicklyon
309:Dicklyon
161:View log
102:glossary
39:or in a
712:Qwirkle
611:Qwirkle
563:Qwirkle
535:Qwirkle
488:Qwirkle
406:Qwirkle
368:Qwirkle
328:Qwirkle
208:WPÂ refs
196:scholar
134:protect
129:history
79:New to
324:Delete
302:– The
180:Google
138:delete
486:time.
223:JSTOR
184:books
168:Stats
155:views
147:watch
143:links
16:<
755:talk
716:talk
695:talk
682:Keep
629:talk
615:talk
597:talk
567:talk
553:talk
539:talk
521:talk
505:Keep
492:talk
477:talk
463:talk
452:and
445:Keep
424:talk
410:talk
390:talk
372:talk
350:talk
332:talk
313:talk
300:Keep
288:talk
268:talk
248:talk
216:FENS
190:news
151:logs
125:talk
121:edit
625:Hzh
593:Hzh
517:Hzh
511:or
230:TWL
159:– (
757:)
718:)
697:)
631:)
617:)
599:)
569:)
555:)
541:)
523:)
494:)
479:)
465:)
426:)
412:)
392:)
374:)
366:)
352:)
334:)
315:)
290:)
282:.
270:)
262:.
250:)
210:)
153:|
149:|
145:|
141:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
52:.
753:(
714:(
693:(
627:(
613:(
595:(
565:(
551:(
537:(
519:(
490:(
475:(
461:(
422:(
408:(
388:(
370:(
348:(
330:(
311:(
286:(
266:(
246:(
234:)
226:·
220:·
212:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
182:(
174:(
171:)
164:·
157:)
119:(
104:)
100:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.