Talk:Hackensack station (New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images[edit]

References[edit]

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/ICC valuations/New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad from Interstate Commerce Commission Reports: Decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States. Valuation reports, Volume 33 Interstate Commerce Commission U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931
  • Catlin, George L. (1872). "Homes on the Midland for New York Business Men". New York, New York: J. W. Pratt – via HathiTrust Digital Lbrary. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Krause, John and Crist, Ed (1991). Susquehanna: New York Susquehanna & Western RR. Carstens Publications. ISBN 0-911868-38-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Kaminski, Edward S. (2010), New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad in New Jersey, Arcadia Publishing, ISBN 978-0-7385-7367-0
  • Kaminski, Edward S. (2010), Maywood - The Borough, The Station, and The Railroad, Acadia Publishing, ISBN 978-0-7385-7234-5

Verifiabilty[edit]

An editor has removed an online/inline reference and changed the format which contravenes the essential idea of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and actually undermines it. There is no good reason for this. See Wikipedia:Inline citation which states: The opposite of an inline citation is what the English Wikipedia calls a general reference. This is a bibliographic citation, often placed at or near the end of an article, that is unconnected to any particular bit of material in an article, but which might support some or all of it. It is called a "general reference" because it supports the article "in general", rather than supporting specific sentences or paragraphs. Djflem (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems the removal of the inline citation was an accident and the point of the edit was to make use of {{sfn}}, which does create an inline citation that links to the work listed in a "bibliography" section. Personally I'm not sure I see the need at this point; in my opinion the main benefit of {{sfn}} is that articles that cite multiple pages of the same work get much more easily readable references section. Currently we only seem to cite one page of the work in question, though. Huon (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'll leave it as is, though I will add the accessdate and page.Mitch32(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 18:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]