Talk:Chicago Union Station

North Side Electrification... Citation Needed!

There is a paragraph claiming that the northern half of Union Station (tracks 1-17) will be closed to install 25Kv overhead wires which will cause Metra Milwaukee services to be temporarily relocated to Ogilive Terminal, and Amtrak services (Hiawatha and Empire Builder) to be relocated near the Norfolk Southern 47th Street yard. There is a "citation needed" box right after the paragraph, since I tried doing some research online about all of this but I couldn't find anything. I'm not sure when this was added, but does anyone have any official source claiming any of this to be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensyfan19 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Great River

Can someone please add the Great River to the list of future services? I would do it but I have no idea how to do it without making an error message pop up. 2600:4041:7B25:C500:1C62:7C77:3AD1:B2EB (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cards84664 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Lack of connections

Attempts to correct the factual accuracy of the article are being edit-warred or trolled into deletion. Union Station *does not* have any direct connection to L rapid transit. There simply is none. Any connection requires at least 5 minutes of walking outside, with several street crossings. Until then, the article is factually incorrect. Spartan S58 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While I was not really a part of this discussion, I would like to weigh in my opinions. While it is true that there are no direct connections to rapid transit within the concourses like in other cities, the RTA considers a transfer to be within one-quarter mile between point A and point B. Considering the criteria of other transit agencies, you would probably be correct. But because of the RTA's clear definition shown at stations, in brochures, and online, I will have to side with ɱ on this one. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not the RTA wants to stick their head in the sand is not Wikipedia's problem. By American and global standards, it is factually incorrect and therefore misleading to Wikipedia's readers, no matter how much the RTA pretends otherwise. The article itself even says so in the body, before I came along. I was only making the article self-consistent (in addition to factually consistent). Spartan S58 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Public transit" parameters in infoboxes are for nearby transit stations. I don't see how this parameter should be more restrictive suddenly. ɱ (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"connections" implies a dedicated link between two services -- see "Mackensen"s reply below. no such connection exists between union and the L. It's the "connections" line that is currently factually incorrect, not the rest of the box. Spartan S58 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, you can argue this ad infinitum. But the RTA deems these are connections. It doesn't say "direct connections" in the infobox, now does it? ɱ (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ɱ: If you cannot even read my edit messages, where I specifically mentioned this new talk section, or indeed read this talk page itself and instead add a pointless duplicate, how am I supposed to believe that you are acting in good faith? Please do not duplicate talk sections, please leave my own user talk page out of it, and for the love of god please don't revert factual corrections. Spartan S58 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring and failing to assume good faith may very quickly lead to a block. Watch yourself, I can file a report in a heartbeat. Continue this conversation, as you acted before a consensus was reached. ɱ (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I assumed good faith, and you abused that faith by failing to read my messages to you, as evidenced by your duplication of this section.

You started the edit war by reverting a good edit, with a reversion-message that contadicts of American and global standards of "connection". You could have equally started a Talk page conversation first, rather than reverting a good edit, tho I was happy to start a Talk page conversation myself. In response to your insistence on factual inaccuracy and edit-wars, I have reverted to standard Wikipedia procedure for dispute resolution. Spartan S58 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned "assume good faith", being that you should assume I am not going to read conversations I was not summoned to. I did not purposefully ignore anything, and I have no duty to scan through a talk page when reverting an edit that lacks consensus. And again, if your changes are reverted, you must discuss, and not continue to force in your changes. This is reflected in multiple policies and guidelines here. ɱ (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

> I have no duty to scan through a talk page when reverting an edit that lacks consensus

I *told* you *in my edit message* that I made a Talk section for it. And when *you made* a Talk section it was already here. When reverting edits, you *must* at least read the edit-message of what you're reverting.

And "I disagree" isn't a good reason to revert edits that improve the factual accuracy of the page. Spartan S58 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

In that last sentence, you're indicating you don't care about consensus-building and discussion, only about truth. This is completely contrary to how we operate on Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability, not truth, WP:Consensus, WP:Edit warring. You still cannot, nor can anyone on Wikipedia, revert someone just because they think they're restoring "the truth". ɱ (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what you did to me in the first place. Your reversion has no more right to exist than my original edit. Spartan S58 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"direct connection", as written in the article lead, implies one or more of the following:

• ability to switch services without leaving the passenger-only areas (e.g. avoiding public sidewalks),
• ability to switch services with some protection from the elements/weather,
• ability to switch services without having to worry about cars, i.e. crossing streets.
• some sort of signage or guidance between the two services

None of these factors apply to the gap between Chicago Union and the L. In fact the very article itself says so down in the later section, but my attempts to fix the article contradicting itself have been reverted. Spartan S58 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I see now that the article header has been improved a bit using some of my factual changes, but is still a bit misleading in my opinion, and the fact box remains incorrect. My improvements to the section in the body remain reverted for reasons I don't understand. The body section is now at least not-incorrect, but remains incomplete, and my fixes to the incompletion remain reverted. This is the revision at the core of the dispute: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chicago_Union_Station&diff=1149840105&oldid=1149839475&diffmode=source Spartan S58 (talk)

The |connections= parameter is meant to indicate connections available from the station itself. I can't give you a bright-line rule on that. Consider Lucerne railway station, which notes Lake Lucerne Navigation Company ferries at Luzern Bahnhofquai. It's about 300 feet from the front of the Lucerne station to Lake Lucerne. One's visible from the other. Clinton's a good 1500 feet the Canal Street entrance, with several street crossings. It's not well-signed. That's barely within the RTA's definition of a transfer. Ogilvie is even further away. From a practical standpoint, Union Station doesn't have rapid transit connections, and it's a known issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Connections

@Spartan S58: if you seek changes, and users dispute the changes, you must discuss them, you cannot WP:edit war, or you may be blocked. Discuss here. ɱ (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)