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
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 Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
buses 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.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
I have just modified 2 external links on
207th Street Crosstown Line. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
I'll do my best reviewing this article over the next few days although its been request for a nomination for a while. So @
Kingsif: I would need your help just in case.--Happypillsjr✉15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi (your ping didn't work because it needs to be signed when you add it) - I can help guide you through this again, but I don't know if the nominator will be very responsive at the moment. Pinging @
Kew Gardens 613 and
Epicgenius:, too.
Kingsif (
talk)
23:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Lead good, some recent expansions fill it out to a fair length
Images good, though it does take a minute to work out the limits of the dark-colored stop map. I think it might work better if it's black-on-white, if possible?
Table clear, infobox fine
Sources are reliable and everything has an appropriate inline citation
Maybe move This was the last Union Railway franchise to be constructed to somewhere later, it's currently at the end of the paragraph about the plans for it (unless this is all there is on construction - it might need some tweaking to make that clear)
Corrected some typos, otherwise fine
Just to ask if there's no more coverage - any incidents or anything?
On hold@
Kew Gardens 613: Just a few things
Kingsif (
talk) 16:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@
Kingsif: Due to the Jewish holiday of Passover and the Sabbath on Saturday, I won't be editing from tonight until Saturday night at the earliest. I wanted to let you know to make sure that you know that I am still committed to addressing the aforementioned issues.--
Kew Gardens 613 (
talk)
21:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)reply
JHunterJ, that is normally true, but this is not a subway article. The vast majority of NYC buses use the naming convention XX (New York City bus) where XX is the bus route, because there are other subjects with that name. This is because they all follow the convention of a single-letter prefix followed by a number, e.g. "B1", "M1", "Q1", or "S40", which is generally pretty common. I think this is the only page with a disambiguator that is non-ambiguous, out of over a hundred articles about NYC bus routes. For consistency with other pages, it might be preferable to keep the disambiguator for this page.
epicgenius (
talk)
14:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
That is always true; the subway topic is just illustrative of the arguments that are going to come up here and the reasons why policy still wins over them. No, the consistency argument is incorrect; it was trotted out and rejected in the subway RfC too (and in every other topic group that mistakes disambiguating qualifiers for necessary parts of all titles).
WP:PRECISION,
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS apply here as well as the rest of the encyclopedia. But I guess we'll just have to have yet another RfC for each topic group that thinks the policies don't apply to it unless they agree first. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
16:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:PRECISION says Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. This can be codified in an RFC that deals with the one or two articles that violate this precision criterion, which is not needed, or an RM, which is more appropriate. Furthermore, one can argue that "Bx12" is an insufficient title to identify the article, since it is only two letters and two numbers. Hence, a title like "Bx12 bus" or "Bx12 (New York City bus)" would be much better, and preferred.
epicgenius (
talk)
19:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Also, as I said
the last time this was brought up, I would prefer "Bx12 bus" over "Bx12", if it came to that. I don't really care whether it has a disambiguator or not. As long as there is something in the page title that makes it clear that the Bx12 is a bus route, then the disambiguation isn't necessary anymore. However, I can see why the version with the qualifier "New York City bus" may be preferred.
epicgenius (
talk)
21:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
JHunterJ: Epicgenius stated my reasoning for reverting the moves. You knew, given the Subway RfC, that moves like this are contentious, and yet you did not bother to bring up your concern to the talk page before moving the article.--
Kew Gardens 613 (
talk)
15:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
And you knew, given the
WP:PRECISION link, that there has been no discussion on the title and that the qualified title goes contrary to Wikipedia policy, and you have reverted two other users instead of bringing it up on the talk page. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
16:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Requested move 19 April 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.