Template talk:Amtrak Northeast Regional

TF Green should not be listed as a station, proposed or otherwise

There is no funding for a TF Green Amtrak station. There is no construction that is in any way imminent. TF Green should not be listed as proposed. There are articles discussing a potential station in East Lyme/Niantic, CT - should that be listed as proposed? No. There's no funding, there's no plan, there's no date for when the station would open. Amtrak doesn't have it in any publication; it doesn't belong on this route map.

I'm reverting your 'undo'; the next step will be to take this to dispute resolution. Riphamilton (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a third party: Um, what? The station already exists and is used by MBTA service. There are several sources in the T.F. Green Airport Station article that explicitly discuss proposals to electrify the FRIP track to allow Amtrak service to stop. The most recent NEC Master Plan and RI State Rail Plan both mention this as well.

Niantic is an entirely separate issue. It is not proposed as an Amtrak stop, but as a Shore Line East stop. It's discussed as such on the SLE article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Pi - there are solid, serious proposals, including in Amtrak's own NEC Master Plan (Riphamilton, I don't know why you said it wasn't in any Amtrak publications, because it is) for NE Regional service to T.F. Green Airport (a station which, as he noted, already exists), which is why it should be on this route map, with a note next to it saying "(proposed)", which is, by the way, the way it was before you decided to remove it. About it not (yet) being funded or under construction with a solid opening date - that's why it was listed as "(proposed)", not as "(under construction; opening [insert date here])".

Therefore, I will be restoring T.F. Green Airport to the RDT. If you disagree, Riphamilton, go ahead and take it to dispute resolution - I very much doubt the outcome would be to your satisfaction. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 22:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

link to dispute

here's the dispute: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Whoop_whoop_pull_up Riphamilton (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I'm not involved but all DRN does is provide a forum for moderated discussion when talk pages don't work anymore. It doesn't produce binding rulings and doesn't go beyond the scope of the individual article (or template in this case). It certainly won't produce a binding ruling for all templates. Going to DRN seems premature when the discussion here has barely developed. Cheers. Mackensen (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]