Talk:47th–50th Streets–Rockefeller Center station

47th–50th Streets–Rockefeller Center station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 3, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Trains: in New York City Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

47th-50th Streets-Rockefeller Center → 47th-50th Streets-Rockefeller Center (IND Sixth Avenue Line) — This argument goes back to April where these unilateral moves were made, whereas the article was supposed to be fixed to get rid of the en dashes but instead the whole title was changed removing the dvision and line monikers. For more information, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#Station Complexes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#Are the acronyms (IND/BMT/IRT) necessary? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7#Station suffixes (e.g. (IRT/BMT/IND Line name)). As per the discussions at these threads, the suffixes should have never been removed, and I ask that they are put back if this RM is successful. —–Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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 Shepherd 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's not a big deal either way. --NE2 20:03, 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 | Talk 20:16, 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 Shepherd 20:28, 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. --NE2 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The title may not be ambiguous, but if it is the name of a subway station, a subway station disambiguation should be expected. Station articles have ignored the rules (or rather the DAB guideline): I recite a listing of such stations here. Tinlinkin 01:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I have completed the request by posting it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Otherwise, the move can't be acted upon because it needs to be handled by an admin. Tinlinkin 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it myself by reversing the original move. Marc Shepherd 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 47th–50th Streets–Rockefeller Center (IND Sixth Avenue 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113015342/http://www.stationreporter.net/btrain.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/btrain.htm

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

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 17:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IND research

@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]

Unrelated, but this long thesis I worked on could form the basis of part of an article about the subway in the 70s. There is a lot of stuff I didn't end up using here: User:Kew Gardens 613/Subways70s80s--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 03:15, 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. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, there should also be one for Unification of the New York City Subway and many other subjects as well. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2023 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:47th–50th Streets–Rockefeller Center station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 19:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs. Ping to remind if I go more than a week or so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're familiar with my reviewing style, so I won't waste time. Here we go!

Does ⟨F⟩ train need to be linked given that F is already linked, and ⟨F⟩ redirects there?
- Removed the second link. Epicgenius (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2022" could be {{as of}}
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oh, how bizarre. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 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.
- Yes, these are utility pipes and wires. I've clarified that. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are bellmouth tunnels?
- I added a link. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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?
- This was the projected cost for the extension, none of which had been built at the time. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It feels weird to have bold text for a variant name halfway down the article. Could we maybe introduce that in the lead?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In early 1949, the BOT that" I think you dropped a word
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol what in sam hell is a "hygiaphone"
- I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"leased 15,000 square feet (1,400 m2) the northern mezzanine" dropped another word
- Oops. I've fixed that too. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that Rockefeller Center is linked in the lead but never in the body
- Linked. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "indefinitely" in quotes?
- It was a direct quote from the MTA. I guess I could remove the quotation marks though. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, otherwise it looks like emphasis marks or irony quotes, even though that isn't what you're doing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really germane to this article, but I'm surprised that New York City Transit Riders Council isn't an article.
Bit surprised at the lack of images of the station or its exits, as there's no shortage of them on Commons.
I forgot to mention that I have fixed these. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, as I said, easy pass :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review PMC. I really appreciate it. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 3 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.