Talk:169th Street station (IND Queens Boulevard Line)

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

Untitled[edit]

Why do we continue to list the old subway operating companies on these NYC Subway wiki pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.130.124 (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 169th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 169th Street (IND Queens Boulevard 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:21, 10 August 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 18:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:169th Street station (IND Queens Boulevard Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Truflip99 (talk · contribs) 20:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Starting review. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • "As a terminal, 169th Street station was considered inefficient due to being a local station." -- could you clarify on what this means?
  • 169th Street wikilink leads to same article, needs to be omitted
    •  Done
  • Terminal station wikilink needs to be on first instance
    •  Done
  • Omit wikilink to 179th Street
    •  Done
  • "At that time, this station was considered to be the most congested due to the numerous bus lines that either terminated just outside or at the nearby 165th Street Bus Terminal." -- clarify which station
    •  Done
  • "The full-time and part-time booths at the station were switched since over half of the remaining riders using the station lived closer to 169th Street. Before the change, most riders came from the Bus Terminal via the 168th Street entrance. The 168th Street booth was made part-time, and the 169th Street booth was made full-time." -- could you clarify on what any of this means?
    •  Done It means that the locations of the booths were swapped. The full-time booth at 168th Street was relocated to 169th Street, and vice versa for the part-time booth. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Station layout[edit]

  • "There are two fare control areas at either end" -- of what?

Refs[edit]

  • Ref 24 needs url or needs to be a different template
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 33 is not sufficient to support the sentence

@Epicgenius:, @Kew Gardens 613: -- Hi all. Just following up on this GA review. There are a couple more pending items above. And I am gonna add my final thoughts below. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 13-15 -- overkill, two refs should suffice. Ref 14 additionally needs to be split.
  • Efforts to alleviate train congestion led to plans to extend the Queens Boulevard Line... -- precede this with In (year), efforts...
  • These facilities would allow for the operation of express and local service to the station. -- which stn is being referred to here?
  • There are earlier instances of E and F wikilinks in prose
  • The opening of the Archer Avenue Line was expected to reduce rush hour ridership at this station from 12,912 to 6,058. -- who expected?
  • The locations of the station's full-time and part-time booths were switched, since more than half of the remaining riders lived closer to the 169th Street entrance. -- when?

epicgenius, Kew Gardens 613: Thanks for addressing these. My remaining issue is this reference -- it doesn't sufficiently support the prose it is referencing. Is there no alternative out there for this? --Truflip99 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can hide this info for now, since I can't find a ref for this. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool, we'll get this one passed :) --Truflip99 (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Epicgenius: Technically, I do have a source for this, but I do not think I can use it as a reference without getting someone in big trouble (i.e. someone gave someone else access to an internal document, and the second person gave me access to it, and the document was not supposed to be made public). Hiding it seems like the prudent thing to do. Thanks so much for your help with this GA. I have been very busy with schoolwork. @Truflip99: Thank you once again for being an amazing reviewer and for taking this article up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • My pleasure. Will try get more knocked out in the next few weeks as I am stuck at home with cabin fever. The both of you, please stay safe during these eventful times. --Truflip99 (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that before the opening of a new subway line, passengers at the 169th Street station had to wait just to get to the platform during rush hours? Source: NY Times 1987
    • ALT1:... that passengers at the 169th Street station had to wait to get to the platform, prior to the opening of a new subway line? Source: NY Times 1987

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 17:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • ☑Y Article is a GA, nominated in time (became GA on 24 March, nominated on 28 March) and article is within policy
  • Question? The hook is well-cited and in the article, but I'm not sure that it's at all interesting. Having to queue to get into a station isn't that unusual- I can think of at least three London Underground stations where this is the case
  • ☑Y QPQ done
  • Epicgenius I don't see how the proposed hook is interesting, as it's not that unusual to queue to get into platforms or stations. Please can you suggest a better hook? I have no other issues with the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302: Thanks for the review. I had found the original hooks interesting because like in most former Independent Subway stations, the mezzanine is huge by comparison - it was even once proposed for use as a parking garage. But I can see where you are coming from since London tube stations are much smaller than NYC Subway stations. How about these? epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes ALT2 or ALT3 look fine to me. If the promoter once to use ALT0 or ALT1, then I have no strong objections either. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E via Hillside[edit]

@Cards84664 and Epicgenius: Can one of you help add the Es to 179th to the infobox next station template? Thanks. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, I tried to format it so the E via Hillside only shows up for the next stop eastbound/northbound. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:169th_Street_station_(IND_Queens_Boulevard_Line)&oldid=1219994556"