This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Support. The proposed name (which was the original name) is consistent with the naming convention for all of the NYCS articles. The convention could be changed (if there's a good reason), but it shouldn't just be done on an ad hoc basis, one article at a time.
Marc Shepherd19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Disambiguation should normally be employed only when necessary. It is not the job of the article title to provide context but only to give the name of the topic. --
Polaron |
Talk20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. There are about 400 New York City Subway station articles. If there's a good reason to rename them, then fine. However, the standard till now has been "Station Name (Line)," a pattern that virtually all of them conform to. Let's not just change one of them. If someone wants to make a proposal, do so on the project page. We'll reach consensus and be done with it (till the next person comes along and proposes yet another way of doing it).
Marc Shepherd20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
This was my reason for moving it here, and I still agree with you, but I don't think it matters much. --
NE222:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
@
Epicgenius:A paper I worked on this past year for school might be of interest. There was a lot of stuff I also didn't include in the sources I cite. Obviously, the paper couldn't be cited, but the sources could be used.
Kew Gardens 613 (
talk)
02:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Both these links are very helpful. Hopefully in the future, we can create an article about the subway in the late 20th century. â
Epicgenius (
talk)
05:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure the ADA detail is necessary for the lead. Is it unusual for there to be elevators - as in, are subway stations commonly not ADA-compliant?
Actually, yes. The vast majority of NYC Subway stations (about 75%) are not ADA-accessible, so this is relatively noteworthy, compared to in basically every other subway system in the US.
Epicgenius (
talk)
03:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"some of the pipes and wires..." I'm assuming this refers to the pipes and wires of the utility lines? It may be just that I'm tired but it feels mildly ambiguous.
Slight inconsistency with format of high-dollar values. Earlier you have $4,616,476, but then you have $34.914 million. Either is fine but I think you should pick one style and stick with it.
"was estimated to cost $34.914 million as of August 1940." This isn't 100% clear to me - was that the projected cost for the whole future project, or was that the amount that had already been spent on the project?
No concerns about sourcing, which is the usual mix of newspapers and books.
No copyvio issues, POV, or any other policy-based concerns.
Images are freely licensed and legitimate.
As usual with your work, pretty minimal griping, especially in the station layout section; most of what's above is nitpicking. Should be a quick pass. â
PMCâ
(talk)04:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.