Talk:Park Street station (MBTA)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Park Street station (MBTA) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Greater Boston Public Transit High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Greater Boston Public Transit WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of public transportation in the Greater Boston metropolitan area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Greater Boston Public TransitWikipedia:WikiProject Greater Boston Public TransitTemplate:WikiProject Greater Boston Public TransitGreater Boston Public Transit
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Stations / Rapid transit 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

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 Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

United States: Massachusetts / Boston Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as High-importance).

Statistics Mistake

The number cited in the sidebar as "weekday average boardings, FY2019" points to a source that provides the same statistic as weekday average gate entries, which is not the same statistic, and because Park Street, in particular, is a major transfer station, it's not even close. The correct number for weekday average boardings, FY2019 should be 61,374, which you can get by summing up the appropriate values from the MBTA Rail Ridership by Time Period, Season, Route, Line, and Stop dataset. I'm not sure if there's a source for this number that doesn't require some data crunching. Not sure what the best course of action here is. Ray Andrews II (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Street Concourse

Wouldn't it be better for the list of lines at the end of this article to list the Winter Street Concourse as if it were a line, instead of pretending that this station is the same station as Downtown Crossing (and thus listing the Orange and Silver Lines)? JNW2 (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted wall mural

If we can't revive the image of the mural once known as Park Street Subway Stop.jpg, I say there should at least be a link to that image. Perhaps there's somebody who can tell me where it can be found, because I tried to find it in the Boston section of WorldNYC.org, but it wasn't there. ----DanTD (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mosaic mural is omitted from the MBTA's official guide to art on the Red Line [1], possibly because it was installed long before the Arts on the Line program was initiated. The MBTA probably owns the rights to the artwork, and could publish a picture of it in its guide, if somebody points out the omission from its online catalog [2], which is intended to be more-or-less comprehensive. Reify-tech (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Line platforms

What is the deal with the Red Line platform/track configuration. Is it only 2 side and 1 track? Or is there another track not pictured? So many questions..... →Gƒoley Four (GSV) 22:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it must be 2 tracks, 1 island and 1 side. I'll put this on the article. →Gƒoley Four (GSV) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected the numbers. The Red Line level has two tracks; they share an island platform, and each has its own side platform. The Green Line level has four tracks. The westbound tracks share an island platform; the northbound tracks share an island platform and the outside track also has an island platform. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the northbound outside track has a side platform, as correctly noted in the article. Reify-tech (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, thanks. Not the first time i've thought of the right configuration and typed the wrong one. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Station Layout

Hello, I believe it would be beneficial to include a section in the article including a diagram of the station layout of the Green and Red Line platforms. This has been done to many other MBTA station articles here and I don't see why we shouldn't include one for Park Street too. Does anyone know the station layout for the Green Line platforms? MyGlassOfMilk (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Station layout section added. (Thanks to Epicgenius) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyGlassOfMilk (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. (Though I was going to do it anyway—nearly all MBTA rapid transit stations have layout now.) Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 February 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure). Xain36 {talk} 01:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Park Street station (MBTA) → Park Street station – This is a WP:TWODABS situation with Park Street railway station (England), and this is clearly the primary topic. It averages around four times the pageviews of the British station. It is also a major subway interchange whose daily ridership approaches the yearly ridership of the British station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. В²C ☎ 15:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I think someone just got in the habit of adding (MBTA) to every station article name during the recent move to "station" suffixes. Grk1011 (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there's no benefit to anyone in ambiguating the US station simply because the British one gets lesser hits. Both are of local interest and making the MBTA station harder to recognize in Google results won't make life easier for any US travelers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) as whilst this article gets more hits, we are not talking about a noticeable amount. Saying "averages four times more" is not really accurate, as some days it's half that amount, and neither station article is getting above 40 a day (odd exceptions aside). On some days over the past 2 months, the pageview difference is just 8 views. I don't think you can make any fair assertion on what is the primary topic. I put oppose "for now" as this article has the potential perhaps to grow further and into one that more will read, but I can't support a move at this time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation. In addition to getting 79.6% of the page views,[3] it appears to also be a much more prominent station, making it the primary topic in terms of both traffic and long-term significance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My support for this is tempered somewhat knowing that this isn't just a WP:TWODABS situation, although the Boston station continues to get more page views than the other topics combined (62.4%")[4] I recommend moving Park Street metro station to Park Street metro station (Kolkata), as the Boston station is also a "Park Street metro station".--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a hatnote from the Indian one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and Cuchullain. Calidum 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. More page view data is here and I didn't find it all that convincing, but reading the article on the English station, it only gets 59 riders a day, so I think it is minor enough that there is a primary topic by significance. Dekimasuよ! 20:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The stations should be tagged by their locations (Boston, England, Kolkata) and we should use a disambiguation page to collect all the stations (note that there is another, far far busier, Park Street metro station). --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reopened/relisted. —В²C ☎ 15:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was inclined to Oppose anyway, as I don't think the Boston station has greater significance than the UK national rail station, and page views are misleading in this case. The Kolkata station mentioned by Regents Park clinches it, though. There is definitely no primary topic here. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – first subway in America: Kind of a big deal? In 1897, the first subway tunnel opened connected Park Street station (MBTA) and Boylston station. It's one of the oldest subways in the world behind London and Budapest and I forget who else (third or fifth oldest?). Britannica, Boston Globe, ASCE (that's ASCE), this random website, History of rapid transit, and of course Park Street station (MBTA) and Boylston station. Also 4x as many Google Books results for Boston than England. Leviv ich 00:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not clearly the primary topic vis-a-vis Park Street metro station, otherwise I would support. From the point of view of our readers there's no clear distinction between "x station", "x metro station", and "x railway station." Now that there's a good disambiguation page it might be worth revisiting in six months to see what the page traffic looks like. Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about also moving Park Street railway station (England) back to Park Street railway station and linking to both in hatnotes? I doubt there is consensus for that but WP:SMALLDETAILS may suffice. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose moves of that nature. The subway stations could also be called "railway stations". Readers shouldn't have to know that Wikipedia has an idiosyncratic practice where British and North American stations have somewhat different guidelines to find what they want, so barring an exceptionally good reason, "Xxx station" and "Xxx railway station" shouldn't be pointing to different places.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I haven't seen such a strange move discussion before. The additional station linked by Regents Park does add an interesting factor to the mix, but reopening a closed move discussion is quite bizarre. The consensus was reached and an action was made by the closing admin. I think a NEW move discussion is warranted here instead were editors can review the fresh data. You can't retroactively add an argument and undermine the previous consensus. Grk1011 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is quite normal. Per step one at WP:MRV any user may contact the closer to request a re-evaluation of the close or a relist. It's then up to the closer whether they agree to that or not. In this case its clear that the new information affects whether or not there's consensus in the discussion, and the relist is correct. — Amakuru (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty routine. I've done it my self may times when someone says they'd have liked to participate, or if it might change the outcome. In this case it spares us from either a move review or opening a second RM. Kudos to B2C for making the call.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Film Explosion

The film that exploded would be "cellulose nitrate", used for motion picture films at that time, which was notoriously flammable. The link should be to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Film_base#Nitrate . 2601:19C:4000:33D6:45AD:F5C1:28F:500C (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated the link in the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]