Jump to content

Talk:South Ferry/Whitehall Street station

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

Prior South Ferry stations

[edit]

The last paragraph of the intro section is inconsistent in its naming and use of Wikilinking to previous instances of the South Ferry. The former uses the Wikipedia article name ("South Ferry loops") but not the actual station name in the text, while the latter uses the station name "South Ferry" with a piped link to the Wikipedia article. Following is how it reads as of now:

This station complex is the third on the site to bear the name South Ferry. The subway station it replaced, South Ferry loops, serving the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line and the IRT Lexington Avenue Line was the second, in service from 1905 to 2009. The first was an elevated station, South Ferry, now demolished, which served the IRT Ninth Avenue Line, IRT Sixth Avenue Line, IRT Third Avenue Line and IRT Second Avenue Line and was open from 1878 to 1950.

Since we already said it bears the name South Ferry in the first sentence, it seems redundant to name it again in each individual reference. We could remove the restatements of the names as follows, but then the link would be relevant to the context, and not the actual linked term:

...The subway station it replaced, serving the...
...The first was an elevated station, now demolished, which...

I believe this needs to be fixed. Since many of you are more experienced with the styles used on Wikipedia than I am, I leave it in your hands to resolve. Any thoughts? -Sme3 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only station to close while remaining intact?

[edit]

The introduction to the IRT-7th Ave states that "[t]he loop station has the distinction of being the only station complex to completely close while remaining intact." This was recently Wikilinked to a list of closed, but existing stations; which seems to contradict the very statement. Can someone explain what this sentence means, and perhaps reword it? -Sme3 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only station complex to close yet remain intact. Other station complexes have closed, but have been demolished. For example, Sands St in Brooklyn. Maybe I should have linked station complex to something explaining that a complex is served by multiple lines and usually represented by a single dot on the map. In this case, the loops were served by the IRT Broadway–7th Ave and IRT Lexington Ave lines. Hope this helps. :-) Acps110 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand. I was thinking "complex" might be the operative word, but had thought of it being a complex in the 1 and R-W sense, not the 7th Ave and Lex Ave sense. But are two IRT lines coming together considered a complex? I look at Nevins St (and for that matter, many of the IRT-only stations in Brooklyn and the Bronx) and I wouldn't call those complexes. -Sme3 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct! The complex as 1 all times N late nights R all except late nights W weekdays until 11:00 p.m. is the current South Ferry-Whitehall Street complex. The 7th Ave and Lex Ave were the former loops station complex.
The distinction at South Ferry loops is a little muddy. Both platforms were called South Ferry and both served individual lines (Lex Ave - inner; 7th Ave - outer). There was never a free transfer between the two platforms, but for a time late night Lexington Ave services served the outer loop (giving an unadvertised free transfer to the 1). The most compelling case to call it a complex, is that both loop platforms were represented on the map as a single dot. A better example of an IRT-only complex in the Bronx would be 149th St-Grand Concourse. Two levels served by the 4 (Jerome line) upstairs and 2, 5 (White Plains Rd line) downstairs. Free transfers between directions on the same line and to the other level. (Also indicated by a single dot on the map.) Nevins St is listed as being on the IRT Eastern Parkway Line. Even though it serves both West Side and East Side trains, it is not a complex because it is only one line. Another IRT-only complex is Grand Central; Upper level shuttle platforms, diagonal Lexington Ave platforms and lower level Flushing line platform. Each could be considered a station in its own right, but all have common fare control and free passage among levels.
Another helpful tidbit to consider is the difference between a line and a service. The Lexington Ave line is served by the 4, 5, and 6 services. This will help you figure out whether it's a station or a complex.
Now to blow your mind a little, here's a complex that hasn't been finished; Lexington Avenue-63rd Street. This is one of my favorite unfinished stations in the system. IND (F) on the south side of the platforms on both levels; BMT (Q) on the north side of both platforms to/from the Second Avenue Subway. (Two island platforms on two levels, but it doesn't look like it now!) Acps110 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To stub or not to stub?

[edit]

There is an edit war brewing over whether or not this article is a stub. As per WP:STUB, a stub is "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject". In my mind, there is some historical information in this article, therefore it is not a stub. I am reverting back to the "non-stub" status, and request any debate occur here. -Sme3 (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on Jimmy Slade's user page to stop adding re-adding stub templates to any NYCS station article that are not stubs. He has blanked his talk page, which indicates he has read the message. I don't know if this will alter his behavior. He has not been very receptive in the past to discussion, and prefers to simply act. Acps110 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On all pages of NYC Subway stations, are the stub, and South Ferry is not exception. Jimmy Slade (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opening this stub, user may get acquainted with all transportation system in NYC, through part of that an any the system station. So I'am reverting back to the "yes-stub" status. Jimmy Slade (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation as this is project-specific vs. page-specific. It seems from Jimmy's response above, that he does not understand what a stub article is. We need a better template to link to Transportation in New York City, if we need a template at all for that. Acps110 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the similar issue on other transportation-related pages when I began this one. Nonetheless, stub-status applies to articles individually, not broader topics or categories. I suggest Jimmy Slade become familiar with WP:STUB, and then discuss them on a case-by-case (or article-by-article) basis if there are still disagreements. -Sme3 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jimmy wants these articles to link to Transportation in New York City. (Mass transit in New York City is an equally-deserving portal/parent article.) There are two logical ways to do this (because mentioning that in the article prose makes little sense without context): 1). a "see also" section with Transportation in New York City as a link. This is impractical because there are also many other links deserving of a "see also" if that one is included. 2). a navigational template. That makes better sense, but I don't like that. I would have to look in the archives of WT:NYCPT, but people were unsupportive of nav templates in subway station articles, as well as navigation to other (unrelated) subway stations.
A different but similar idea would be to link to a portal, as in one for New York City to the right. Portal:London transport is the most developed (and stunning!) city-specific rail transit portal. If someone wants to build one and maintain it for New York City transportation, it's a big job and the job's not gonna go to me. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the link to Mass transit in New York City in the see also section the best. It's simple and a more contextual link than Transportation in NYC. Acps110 (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

put the (1) back

[edit]

Vchohen, if you're listening, please redo MY edit. I forgot how I did it in the first place. It had at the top of the page, Where N & R is, please put back (1), and where the (1) south ferry part is, put the (1) back, that's all.24.193.156.117 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This station is closed for 3 years, therefore it's shown as closed. The same story is with the Cortlandt Street station on this line: it's closed for years and shown as closed. Vcohen (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with South Ferry loops (New York City Subway)

[edit]

The two stations are part of the same station complex, and New York City Subway stations within the same complex are always described within the same article. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The MTA plans to reopen the "New South Ferry" station by 2016, and if I'm not mistaken, the existing connection between the South Ferry Loops and the replacement complex is supposed to be temporary. Although I think it wasn't such a great idea for the MTA to replace the loop station, I still say the two complexes should be kept separate. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This case is similar to the case of the Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (New York City Subway) article that the historic BMT Fifth Avenue Line station was merged into. Vcohen (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the one who originally recommended the merge of the Atlantic Avenue (BMT Fifth Avenue Line), but other users gave valid reasons for opposing it, so I withdrew my nomination. It was merged anyhow. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they spoke about separate fare controls. Anyway, actually the Atlantic Avenue stations are in one article now. It's strange to see two stations with separate fare controls in one merged article and two stations with one fare control in two separate ones. We should either unmerge the Atlantic Avenue or merge the South Ferry, or do both. Vcohen (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found another example. Jay Street – MetroTech (New York City Subway) is an existing station complex, Bridge–Jay Streets (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) is a former station that had a free transfer to one station of the complex, and these two articles are still not merged. I think there are more such examples that are still not merged, so the simplest way is to unmerge the Atlantic Avenue article, and then everything will be consistent. Vcohen (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the MTA considers South Ferry and Whitehall Street to be one complex, they should be merged. If Jay Street – MetroTech (New York City Subway) was considered one complex with Bridge–Jay Streets (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) when they were in service, then that should be merged too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.5.2 (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that, I have merged the articles. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric walls

[edit]

Can we really call a 200 year old wall prehistoric? 99.108.140.49 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 September 2015

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, thank christ. Definitely something that should be handled at a project level with a RfC. Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:USSTATION. This convention has already been applied to the entire Washington Metro system, and I like how it removes many of the parentheses that simply aren't necessary. This is a requested move for all of the 1 train stations, and if successful, I will go ahead and change the remaining stations in the system as well. As for the duplicates (of which there are many in Manhattan -- 86th Street corresponds to three stations in Manhattan and two in Brooklyn), I've left the parentheses with line names inside them. I'm not sure if this is superior to, say, the name of the avenue in which the station is on (like Lexington Avenue, Central Park West, etc.), but I'm open to other suggestions. Let's see how this goes...I welcome your feedback, approval, disapproval, etc — c16sh (speak up) 04:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However these moves might be better served in a multiple move request that overcame any relevant objections as presented above. GregKaye 09:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: That would be my preference. People going to Rector Street might say "I'm going to Rector Street". People going to Rector Street station might say "I'm going to Rector Street station". I also do not think that the length of any of the redirects will be affected by any of the titles. I think that many aspects of the proposal are, on an optional basis, reasonable but I don't personally think that it will make a great deal of difference either way. GregKaye 19:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: FTR, I have no problem with your preference. I just wanted to know if you were sure about it. It may be dialectal, but most people on the NYC subway say, "I'm going to Rector Street" rather then "I'm going to Rector Street station". Epic Genius (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I am sure that: most people on the NYC subway say, "I'm going to Rector Street" and this is certainly a very valid comment. I am speaking from a distant vantage point of Sussex in the UK but I would imagine that people not on the NYC subway may say, "I'm going to Rector Street station" or "I'm getting on the subway/getting the train at Rector Street". I don't have strong views on this but, in a sea of opposition, I just wanted to provisionally present a clearly questionable but opposing view. Encyclopedic content can, IMO, be presented by both means and I think that the question needs to be what best meets readers needs. The titles clearly already achieve the minimum standard of disambiguation and I appreciate that this goes into other territory. GregKaye 08:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: I definitely see what you mean: to out-of-towners, the station titles can be a bit confusing. Epic Genius (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 70.51.202.113. Also, these articles are a small part of the whole New York City Subway topic, including hundreds of articles. If we are going to rename some of them, it would be better to discuss the whole group. Vcohen (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 70.51.202.113. No reason to remove the disambiguator. It would be good to look at this question again. A coherent approach should be taken to these kinds of metro station articles. This issue - as raised in Talk:Metro Center station#Requested move 24 July 2015 and Talk:Greenbelt station#Requested move is not going to go away. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on both procedural and logical grounds. The current disambiguator will suffice. Why do we need an inconsistent naming system? It goes against project consensus that has stood at WP:NYCS for years. This mass move also runs aground of WP:CONCISE, and in many cases, the moves make the article's title longer and harder to find.
    70.51.202.113 is also correct that renaming all the articles to @c16sh's suggested titles will cause problems for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not to mention WP:ENDASH and WP:SLASH. And unlike in the Washington Metro, one station name applies to multiple stations in about half the cases, so again, it is a violation of WP:CONCISE.
    WP:USSTATION is not even stable yet. Maybe a new move request can be made when WP:USSTATION is finalized. Until then, it is unacceptable to mass-move all these pages. It will just cause a mess where pages are move-warred for months until one person gets indefinitely blocked or sent to administrator's noticeboard. Epic Genius (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your approach but am not optimistic that the issues with WP:USSTATION will resolve themselves. There's been no activity on the talk page for more than a month and no substantive edits to the guideline since April. Furthermore, the guideline seems to have been misused to push through page moves contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even though WP:USSTATION states that the usual disambiguation rules apply. Case in point: Metro Center (WMATA station) → Metro Center station despite three other stations of that name. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamberhurst: You said, The guideline seems to have been misused to push through page moves contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even though WP:USSTATION states that the usual disambiguation rules apply. I completely agree with you on that. In any case, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs to be really considered when moving pages in the name of WP:USSTATION. Since more than half of the articles listed still require a disambiguator after the page move—plus the new names are now longer, violating WP:CONCISE—moving the pages is useless in this case. There needs to be a very long discussion among the larger community before changing the name format of any New York City Subway articles. Epic Genius (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2015 (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.

Whitehall Station?

[edit]

Whitehall Station redirects here. That's a potential move target for Whitehall (Amtrak station). I didn't see any discussion of that name in the article itself. Is that usage common? Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2016 (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 18:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on South Ferry/Whitehall Street (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) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Talk:South Ferry/Whitehall Street (New York City Subway)/GA1}


Please check opening dates on IRT loops

[edit]

I am attempting to correct the dates on the opening of the South Ferry loops. The inner opened in 1905. The outer loop did not open until 1918.

I have only gotten to part of the article. I will do the rest when I get a chance (or someone else can do it).

Source: https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/IRT_West_Side_Line#South_Ferry



Note: nycsubway.org had been around since 1995. The original wiki article was actually copied from that site. Allan (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IRT1904: The information is correct - the outer loop opened in 1905, the inner loop in 1918. Even nycsubway.org says: The "outer loop" platform was the first built at this location. The outer loop was built for the Lexington Avenue Line, but when the West Side Line was opened in 1918, West Side trains took over the outer platform. The inner loop could serve only the Lexington Avenue Line, but it was opened only as a result of the West Side Line being extended down here. I believe the confusion stems from the fact that the inner Lexington Avenue platform and the West Side Line opened at the same time. Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Ferry/Whitehall_Street_station&oldid=1205978013"