Jump to content

Talk:Times Square–42nd Street station

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

Notes

[edit]

The passenger underpass for the shuttle is above the downtown local track of the BMT Broadway line and not between the two express tracks as was originally noted in the article. I ride this section of the BMT every day and can attest to this.

The downtown local track dips down right after the 49th Street station so that it can go underneath the underpass and rejoins the other 3 tracks just before it gets to the Times Square station.

--Allan 18:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big White Space

[edit]

Is there aany way to get rid of that terri\bly ugly white space just below the 1st paragraph? Can someone make the info box not push the text all down and have it just wrap the text? It looks really dumb as it is right now. Justin Tokke (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ugly, but simply wrapping the text would misalign the sections with the infoboxes. The way to do it would be to alternate the boxes left and right, but as far as I know the templates haven't been written to allow a left box. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I don't like the look of the external links section. Too many links, and I'm not sure how many are relevant. I deleted one definite linkspam (crossposted to multiple pages) and moved the street views to their own section. Perhaps it's possible to weed out a few more, or maybe collapse them with a show/hide template? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next stop for IRT Flushing Line downtown

[edit]

The next stop south for the IRT Flushing Line's services is listed as 34th Street, which is under construction. The 10th Avenue station should also be listed a planned station. Otherwise, the 96th Street (IND Second Avenue Line) station on the IND Second Avenue Line should not have links for 106th Street, either, because 106th Street station is not funded and not under construction, like 10th Avenue. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 10th Avenue station isn't planned. It's just an idea. They've designed the line so that it's not impossible to add a station at 10th Avenue should the demand and funding ever materialize. There is no schedule to build the station, no contract and only a superficial design. The station does not exist and may never exist. Continuing to add it as the next stop after 42nd Street is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The 34th Street station, on the other hand, is currently under construction. It has a clear schedule and is "almost certain" to open within the next year or so. The 106th Street station should also be removed. It's presence is just an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pburka (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about 116th Street and all the other stations on the Second Avenue Line? These articles have next-stop links, too.
On the other hand, I do not have an article for the Secaucus station because it isn't on any official plans, unlike the 10th Avenue, 106th Street, and 116th Street stations. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 14:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 116th Street article doesn't exist anymore. Having 10th Avenue listed as the "next" stop from 42nd Street will be confusing. Currently, 42nd is terminus. Soon, 34th Street will be the next stop. We have no idea when, if ever, 10th Avenue might become the next stop. There is no timeline and no funding. There's a very good chance it will never be built. Pburka (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I don't object to the 10th Ave station being mentioned as a proposed station in this article, but it shouldn't be in the infobox. An WP:INFOBOX should provide a "quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject". Proposed stations which may never be built are not key facts. Pburka (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the 10th Avenue article still exists. So do the articles for all the Second Avenue Line stations—they're simply redirects to the SAS page.

Accessible

[edit]

"all except 42nd Street Shuttle; passageway between 42nd Street – Port Authority Bus Terminal and rest of complex is not accessible" - Eh? Could this tangled verbiage be decoded into something more, umm, accessible? Jim.henderson (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:163rd Street–Amsterdam Avenue (IND Eighth Avenue Line) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal (New York City Subway). 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly removing GAN

[edit]

@Mgasparin: This is nowhere near ready for it.

  • There are sections without citations
  • Citations need to be expanded
  • There are a few questionable sources
  • There is a whole lot I planned to add about the major renovation during the 1990s, since that is not included it is not comprehensively covering the subject
  • You are a new editor, and while I commend you for wanting to take up the challenge, I urge you to spend more time editing before your first nomination. If you want to make this a GA, you should start by improving sourcing and adding gaps in the article. If you need more assistance, feel free to ask me or other members of WP:NYCPT. We can always use more help. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgasparin: If you need advice on how to improve the article, don't hesitate to ask me other editors. We could always use more help on the topic. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed entrances of Shuttle platform

[edit]

@Mtattrain: I found a diagram showing the station complex with the opening of the Flushing Line station, which shows some building exits I don't think we have mentioned, and notes the closure of the Knickerbocker entrance. Could you help me reconcile this and this so we could add information to the article? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugliness

[edit]

Can someone look at possibly fixing the VERY long space between the lead and the first section? It is distracting and not appealing. I suppose an alternative would be to merge the rest of the article into the infobox, which is colorful but seems to have grown to dwarf the article. It seems WP:What Wikipedia is not might be considered. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This no longer appears to be an issue. The large gap was caused by a {{clear}} template after the table of contents, which was removed in October 2021. Personally I do not think it is ugly, but that is a matter of personal preference. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

600 feet, etc.

[edit]

@Epicgenius: I am pretty sure the platforms here on the IND are 660 feet-E trains did run here with 11-car trains briefly in the 1950s. As an aside, we should add info about the MTA's planned redevelopment of the storefront space on the mezzanine level announced at an MTA board meeting in the fall.

The biggest hole in the article is the construction/planning for the BMT station, and the changes made to fit in the Dual Contracts IRT station. Your work on this article has been exceptional. There is also more to add on the late 80s/early 90s proposed station renovation, among other things. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, thanks, I appreciate it. The original source mentions 600 feet, but I see the article says the platforms were was extended to 660 feet later on, so I'll fix that shortly.
Your comment reminds me of something else, though, I think the article's size will become an issue sooner or later. This article is already quite large - it currently has 55,000 characters or 8,900 words of readable prose, and I only expect the article's size to increase as we find more information. Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline says that an article "may need to be divided" at 50,000 characters but that this probability will go up as more info is added. As you said, we'll likely have tons of additional information about the construction of the Dual Contracts BMT and IRT stations. We may also need to add info about modifications during the mid-20th century, the 80s/90s renovation plans, and the station layout, which could easily bring this article to 70,000 or 80,000 characters of prose.
I think we should only split this page as a last resort. However, I notice that a lot of the info in this page is about the IND Eighth Avenue Line station. While the station is indeed connected to the Times Square complex within fare control, it's often described separately from the rest of the complex, and it isn't listed on the National Register of Historic Places unlike the other four stations. We could consider splitting off the IND station's page if this article gets too large; the IND station had its own article before 2014, but that may be a discussion for a later date. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius I agree re:splitting. I don't love the idea, but if we have to split the article down the road, that would likely be the way to do it. A section on historic ridership might also be warranted. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we may need to add a section about ridership. The Times Square station has had the highest ridership of any subway station for the past several years, but it would be interesting to see whether this has always been the case. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have ridership data going back to 1904-1905, actually, and could check.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much appreciated. I did find a NY Times article from 1988 which says the station was "second only to Grand Central in volume". It would be interesting to see whether the Times Square station was ranked below Grand Central because the 42nd Street/PABT station was a separate station at the time. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My worry is whether it would be acceptable as a source. I got the Excel spreadsheet secondhand. I got if from someone else who got it from NYCT. I know the numbers are correct given they fit in with other sources (including a different 1940-1995 book). Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could potentially re-split the article, since the partial connection to the Sixth Avenue trains acts the same way (when open). Cards84664 15:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: FYI the article history is currently sitting at 42nd Street – Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line), the redirect 42nd Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal station would need to be deleted first. Cards84664 15:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cards84664, I could do a page swap if the only issue is that the redirect 42nd Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal station exists.
I think there is a more pressing issue, though, which wasn't a problem at the time of the above discussion. Right now (since March 13, actually), this article is in Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded. I suspect that the infoboxes may be the culprit, since each of them contributes to about 10% of the WP:PEIS. I think we should split the IND station's article so the templates near the bottom of the page don't appear as plain links (which is what happens when the post-expand include size gets too long). Also pinging @Kew Gardens 613. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the current plan to deal with this? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: @Kew Gardens 613: If this article ends up being re-split, should it be similar to Fulton Center, where the complex has an article, and both stations also have articles too? Cards84664 16:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that we should only have two articles for this: the original BMT/IRT complex at Times Square and the IND stop at PABT. We can briefly mention the PABT station in the Times Square article, and we can briefly mention the Times Square station in the PABT article. But there aren't too many sources that describe both the Times Square and PABT stations together. Unlike with Fulton Center, which was a major public-works project at multiple stations, news articles usually talk about either the Times Square complex or the PABT station alone; relatively few sources talk about the Times Square-PABT complex as a whole. Furthermore, the combined page might still be so large that there's issues displaying the templates at the bottom of the page. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the obvious with the ridership numbers, do you see any other issues in splitting this up?Cards84664 16:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ridership numbers and the adjacent stations templates are the only things that really need to be addressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can get those templates fixed, so we just need a note that says "ridership shared with the other station" or something similar. Do you have drafts for the split articles? Cards84664 17:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I don't, but I can create these soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now at Draft:42nd Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal station and Draft:Times Square–42nd Street station. I think the PABT draft should be histmerged with 42nd Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal station, and the Times Square draft histmerged with this article, when the split does occur. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this one can be renamed back to Times Square–42nd Street station. Thanks for fixing the 42-PABT history with that round-robin swap. Cards84664 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Times_Square–42nd_Street_station&oldid=1210555807"