A fact from Van Cortlandt Parkâ242nd Street station appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 December 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Add  # '''Support''' or  # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is
not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
Oppose. The common name, as seen on signs, is 242nd StreetâVan Cortlandt Park.
Platform signs place the "242 St" first and in larger text, and
entrance signs omit the "Van Cortlandt Park". The MTA itself is
inconsistent, using both orders and sometimes only "242 St".
News articles, when they include the "Van Cortlandt Park" portion, almost always place it aftor "242nd Street". This includes a New York times article from last month: "Mr. Koppell agreed, saying that every night at the 242nd Street-Van Cortlandt Park subway station,..." --
NE220:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. NE2, the issue here is the en-dash vs. hyphen, not the order of nomenclature components. Save the name order for another discussion.
Larry V (
talk |Â
e-mail)
20:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
You're right, Larry; I shouldn't have used the discussion of a move for technical reasons to bring in a different issue. Sorry about that. --
NE208:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't know what you are smoking, but perhaps you should to read
WP:CONSENSUS again!
Policy isn't meant to be prescriptive in the fashion you suggest; you can't just attempt ram a change through over here, just because some other group decided something else over there. Perhaps you should read
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY too. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Per
WP:MOSAT, the MOS doesn't override the naming convention that has been established. If there was no naming convention, we would use
WP:COMMONNAMES.
No change in the current consensus was established; a discussion wasn't even really attempted. Per NotBureaucracy again, Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. I was waiting for the discussion to form some sort of consensus of whether this arbitrary change was wanted or necessary. I even attempted to get more people to see the discussion by moving it from a subpage that no one watches to the project discussion page. Since no new consensus was formed in over two months, I simply moved this page back. The naming convention reflects the current consensus that was formed through much discussion. It can't just be changed arbitrarily. Per
WP:BATTLEGROUND, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies, and
do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
I don't understand what your fetish is with only this page when there are hundreds of articles that all follow this naming convention. It really pisses me off that you immediately move warred it back to your preferred version, ignoring the current consensus and telling me that that consensus is irrelevant! You are an administrator, you should know better! I am extremely upset with your conduct because administrators are held to a higher standard. I strongly suggest you undo your move warring and attempt some consensus building on the project page!
Consensus at an article talk page or whatever cannot go against policy, no matter how ardently you feel otherwise. An individual WikiProject, such as one of the many devoted to, say, a particular TV genre or franchise, cannot decide to adopt a lower standard than that embodied in
WP:NFCC for the use of third-party copyrighted images, no matter how much it might arguably improve their articles, because that has been decided for Wikipedia as a whole by the discussions that led to those criteria being adopted as policy.
WP:MOSAT only concerns the choice of words used in article titles where individual projects have chosen to use a different standard (i.e., species names rather than common names); I see no way that could be read to include a different standard for punctuation, especially when the MOS speaks very clearly on that issue in article titles.
My "fetish" for this page is simple: since I expanded it extensively for
WP:NRHP, I put it on my watchlist. Indeed, if as you say there are hundreds of
WP:NYCPT articles that would be affected, then indeed they all should be renamedâa housekeeping task of the sort many members of this community have willingly done with many categories of articles in the past when policy changes demanded it.
As I have said, consensus in the discussions at the appropriate project talk pages was and remains a moot point when the article titles were in clear and unambiguous violation of policy as amended months ago. But, I do note that all the other participants besides yourself were pretty clear about exactly that point ... they did however fail to follow through on renaming the articles. That failure would not, even if the MOS were silent on the issue, justify a claim that no consensus was reached.
And as for discussion, I stated above that I left a note on your talk page on March 3 when I made the original revert (I believe there's a link?). You did not reply to it on my talk page or yours at that time, and I moved on to other things in the interim, assuming that by not responding you were indicating acceptance of my position. So, naturally, I was a little taken aback by your actions of yesterday, which until what you wrote above indicated no engagement whatsoever with a clear and unambiguous policy change (You may not like it anymore than I liked (or like) the fair-use policy I alluded to above ... but you have to live with it. Dura lex sed lex). I thus do not consider myself to have acted in any way unilaterally or outside of policy.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
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.